tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 13 15:42:34 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: Grammar question
- From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger)
- Subject: KLBC: Grammar question
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 22:09:00 -0500
yI'Ij! "KLBC: Grammar question" Bill Willmerdinger jatlhchu'pu' Uucp
Uu> From: trI'Qal <ur-valhalla!opus.mco.edu!DOBELBOWER>
>chaq yInmeH jaj QaQ 'oH DaHjaj'e'
>
>Perhaps =today= is a good day for living.
>
>This would make the old "Today is a good day to die" quote:
>
>HeghmeH jaj QaQ 'oH DaHjaj'e'
Uu> I don't know if anyone who responded to this post (whatever happened
Uu> to the week's grace period I asked for, folks???? This was dated the
Uu> 6th...) actaully answered the question or not, but here goes...
Of course they did. Am I allowed to be just a =little= confused? :-)
Uu> Looks fine to me. I only would have added something to <HeghmeH> to
Uu> give it a
Uu> subject/object, even if it were something like <Heghlu'meH>. Hm. On
Uu> second thought, after skimming the section on -lu' in the KD, I am not
Uu> certain that you can use -lu' this way... I sense a debate on the use
Uu> of -lu' coming up. {{:(
I thought of using the -lu' suffix, but I avoid it unless I'm *sure* I know
what I'm saying with it. I was (and still am) unsure if using -meH is
appropriate. Guido thinks no, Krankor thinks yes, and Bill wonders what to
think.
What *I* was wondering was if I needed a verb prefix on yInmeH and HeghmeH.
>... bISuvtaHvIS bIHeghjaj
Uu> Heh. I like it. 'ej SoH je!
qatlho'. I was one of the originators of some truly horrendous Hol taglines
that I posted on Fidonet KLINGON and Dave Barron (I think) posted here. Many
were done before I ever heard of the KLI, so I have *some* excuse. I'm trying
to update them as I learn more (I'm taking David's postal course now).
Qob
... qoH vuvbe' SuS - qeylIS