tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 02 10:20:01 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lut tlhaQ: nuq qab law' Dochvam qab puS?
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: lut tlhaQ: nuq qab law' Dochvam qab puS?
- Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:21:42 -0500
Alex "Lord Havelock" writes:
>meghlIjDaq yIH Datu' nuq qab law' 'e' qab puS?
>meghlIjDaq yIH bID Datu' 'e' qab law' Dochvetlh qab puS.
This is a *very* interesting twist on the {law'/puS} construction.
I don't see anything drastically wrong with it; it certainly makes
syntactic sense to me. However, this sort of thing is sufficiently
unusual that I won't start using it myself, at least not until I've
seen more support for it (in canon, perhaps).
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj