tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 05 08:36:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: E pluribus unum
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 23:41:37 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>On Fri, 3 Mar 1995 [email protected] wrote:
>> If we could use *wa'* as a verb: wa'choH [qo'] law'
>How about: wa' chenmoH law'wI'.
>or: wa' moj law'wI'.
It's weird. I didn't agree with Glen Proechel's article in HolQeD recently
(in which he objects to constructions like the one you just did), so I
ought to like using "law'wI'". I thought of it too. But for an
inexplicable reason, I don't really like the sound of it, even if you threw
in the redundant plural marker and made it law'wI'mey. I guess we all have
our little preferences.
Oh, and it should be "luchenmoH" and "lumoj", shouldn't it?
>yoDtargh
~mark