tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 27 15:33:55 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon translation
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon translation
- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:32:51 -0400
- Authentication-results: smtp02.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=embarqmail.com; s=s012408; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; [email protected]; t=1246141973; h=From:Subject:Date:To:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=P91OvC7z+J7BrGxqoAl5OPpgwcc=; b=H3kzVGjLdiuw0rEW5INUIibfLog0nGVwnkickBzlktXGMVMUWoEFhGaFROfiM18F OiUlQM/vZiPdzlYPOzyq5FQlhODsS3BKAmXTqDXL8PLfcoox6umbxoBGTj+sUg1G;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- X_cmae_category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
qay'be'.
On Jun 27, 2009, at 6:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/27/2009 18:19:55 Eastern Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> While I like using the suffix {-'e'} to mark the head noun that links
>> the relative clause and the main clause, Okrand has rarely used it,
>> and in this particular case, since there is only one noun in the
>> relative clause, it doesn't really need to be marked.
>>
>> What you've written is definitely not wrong. It's just putting an
>> unusual quantity of focus on {nuHvetlh}.
>>
>> Doq
>>
>
> Good point. Like I said, I should have just read the whole post
> before
> jumping in.
>
> lay'tel SIvten
>
>
>