tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 30 19:55:17 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC Buy me a drink
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC Buy me a drink
- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 96 03:18:28 UT
December 30, 1996 6:26 PM, jatlh Stefan Reich:
> HurghwI' wrote:
> > I realize that there was a little discussion about this recently, but I'm
> > still not comfortable with <jItlhutlh 'e' yIDIl>.
> This is my proposition: <jItlhutlhbogh yIDIl> ("pay for what I drink").
> What do the grammarians say to this?
*If* you accept using a headless relative clause, then you'd need to indicate
that there *is* an object with {vI-}. {vItlhutlhbogh yIDIl}.
Again, *if* you can use this sort of thing, then this is a very elegant way of
saying this. If you *can't*, well . . .
Personally, I favor the "can't" side, but *I'm* the one who found the pesky
sound file on KCD in the first place! My preference is not a matter of what I
think is right or wrong, but simply a matter of aesthetics.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96999.7