tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 17 13:57:45 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'
• Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 16:57:14 -0400

In a message dated 96-05-16 13:23:23 EDT, ~mark wrote:

>muqIp HoD DaHoH 'e' leghbogh puq
>
>for "The child who saw you kill the captain hit me", since the sentence
>referred to by 'e' isn't strictly the "preceding sentence" but rather a
>clause (albeit an independent, complete one), that's sort of sandwiched
>inside another sentence.
>
>Or is this not what we were discussing?

It is.  I just said it badly.  mumISqu'moHmo'!  (I'm STILL not a linguist!)

I'll accept it when I come across it in Hamlet.  Actually, considering some
of the stuff we see in TKW, it may be perfectly legitimate!

SuStel
Hovjaj 96374.8

• Prev by Date: Nominalization
• Next by Date: targhmey ghopDu' je
• Prev by thread: Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'
• Next by thread: Met Mark O. once
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level