tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 02 10:20:01 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: lut tlhaQ: nuq qab law' Dochvam qab puS?



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




Back to archive top level