tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 23 00:52:50 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:52:08 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Voragh:
>I didn't follow that thread, so forgive me if I repeat a suggestion...
qay'be'. {{:)
>A common Okrandian solution to problems like would be to consider it {no'
>Hol} and, therefore, evidence of an older stage of the language, not
>particularly relevant to 23rd/24th century {ta' Hol}.
It's tempting, isn't it? :D I'll quote myself here (from the Common Grammar
Problems Wiki page):
"{yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'}: While somewhat of a sneaky way out, we can
say that this construct probably is... an older form of Klingon - much that
is ritual about battle is also associated with no' Hol..." (Common Grammar
Questions And Problems - Relative Clauses: What Possibilities?)
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-au&page=hotmail/es2