tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 16 11:33:24 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} and "to be" (was Re: Klingon on IRC)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: {-Daq} and "to be" (was Re: Klingon on IRC)
- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:32:52 -0500
In a message dated 95-12-15 10:24:36 EST, you write:
>Not unless we have a deepseated need to be unambiguous. But your "-'e'"
>method is unattested, so far as I know.
>
>>peHruS
>
>~mark
>
>
I got the notion from a posting of YOUR's just little over a week ago. I
will try to find it again. In it, your were confirming the use of {-'e'} for
specifying the Object of a {-bogh} relative clause.
I really hope we can work this one out to satisfaction of all.
peHruS