tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 02 16:54:20 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

nuq vIjatlh DaneH

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: nuq vIjatlh DaneH
• Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 19:53:31 EDT

In a message dated 2004-07-02 6:56:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> > *{nuq vIjatlh DaneH} seems simple enough, but it technically violates what
> > we know about Klingon.  Until Okrand says otherwise, avoid it.
> 
> My opinion is that the technical violation is unproven.  I freely admit that
> my opinion is based on my assuming what Marc Okrand *really* meant rather
> than accepting as universally applicable what he is reported to have said in
> a certain context.
> 
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> 
Especially if you turn it around and use the answer as a model.  Then there 
simply is no question to confuse the issue.  {<tlhaQ ghu'vam> Dajatlh vIneH.}  
I agree with ghunchu'wI'.  Okrand's statement about QAO was about a completely 
different type of sentence.  Replacing <tlhaQ ghu'vam> with <nuq> makes 
perfect sense, and remains a question, asking for an answer.  Do I need to say this 
is my opinion?  Or does my simply saying it imply that?

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: nuq vIjatlh DaneH
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: "majatlh neH"
• Next by Date: Re: ghelmeH mu'tlhegh'e' Sayu'
• Previous by thread: Re: jItlhoch'egh'a'
• Next by thread: Re: nuq vIjatlh DaneH
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level