tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 06 09:17:39 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -choHmoH
On Tue, 6 Sep 1994, William H. Martin wrote:
> {-lI'vIS} Dalo'laHbe'. {-taHvIS} Dalo'nIS. loS DoD cha' DoD Hut
> (4.2.9 of TKD) yIlaD.
bIlugh.
> I'd also appreciate it if either ~mark or Krankor would comment
> on this {-choHmoH} business. I feel like those who seem to be
> making the policy here may not fully recognize the
> ramifications of their interpretation, and I really wonder if
> everyone else thinks this is a good interpretation of the
> difference between a verb with a lone {-moH} vs. {choHmoH}. I
> was a little dissappointed that nobody commented on my own
> suggestion for the difference.
The main reason I didn't respond was because of ~mark's post of Sept.
4th. I thought it settled the matter. Maybe you haven't received it yet.
I once got a message 6 days late.
> Since my suggestion was ignored and the suggestion has more to
> do with the beginning state of the object of the verb, I feel
> like two people are dictating this with permission given
> through indifference by others.
I normally refrain from commenting on someone else's Klingon, especially
since my own grammar is so deplorable. The only reason I responded was
because he seemed to ask for clarification of a specific example I had
written.
I think discussion on this list over the weekend has been light because of
the Labor Day holiday.
> charghwI'
yoDtargh