tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 10 17:02:59 2008

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Relative clause fun

ghunchu'wI' ([email protected])

• From: ghunchu'wI' <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Relative clause fun
• Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:01:13 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <C5141B9B.2527%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

ja' Doq:
> Or maybe you should just say:
>    JohnvaD tev lunob.

To preserve the implication that the idea is about John:

   tev Hevbogh loD ghaH John'e'

Or even just

   tev Hev John'e'

In fact, this is such an obvious and simple way to state the original  
idea that I have to wonder why one would even consider the  
complicated attempt at a beneficiary-headed relative clause.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Relative clause fun
    • From: d'Armond Speers <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Relative clause fun
    • From: d'Armond Speers <[email protected]>
  • Re: Relative clause fun
    • From: Doq <[email protected]>
  • RE: Relative clause fun
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: Relative clause fun
• Next by Date: Re: Relative clause fun
• Previous by thread: RE: Relative clause fun
• Next by thread: Re: Relative clause fun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level