tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 27 15:53:44 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <-vam> was (taghqIj concedes defeat!)
- From: [email protected] (Anthony Curran)
- Subject: Re: <-vam> was (taghqIj concedes defeat!)
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:54:42 -0500 (CDT)
22 Oct., 1995, gItlh charghwI'
>My approach is to follow the rules as they are most clearly
>expressed with as few extensions as possible. When Okrand
>offers us new extensions through interview or canon example, I
>take that on as a new tool for the language.
>
>
>Will
Actually, I tend to agree with you almost all of the time. I take a
conservative view on most points. My original point was not so much that
using <-vam> and <-vetlh> in this type of construction was particularly
desirable, but that the rule as stated in TKD did not seem definative. I
also agree with you that there are certainly better and more stylistically
satisfying ways of expressing ourselves. I suppose I should reserve my
desire for poetic license until a more elegant constuction is in question.
qo'ran