tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 03 12:55:29 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jIyajbe'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: jIyajbe'
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 21:44:08 +0200
>Point #1: the original note was posted under the KLBC header. *PLEASE*
>let the Beginners' Grammarian answer before giving your comments. This
>rule is supposed to keep the possibility of confusion to a minimum, and
>leads me to...
I've double checked and you are correct that I answer this mail to soon. I
admit that is my mistake...
>This used to be Captain Krankor's interpretation also (HolQeD 3:1, pp. 8-9),
>but we now know differently.
I knew I'd like him...(c;
>Marc Okrand explained {-ghach} clearly in an
>interview (HolQeD 3:3, pp. 10-13). To the question "Can we use the suffix
>{-ghach} on a naked stem?" he replied "The general answer to that is 'no.'"
>It's not entirely ungrammatical, but it's going to call a lot of attention
>to the word and people are going to say "that's a unique formation" and be
>distracted from the intended meaning.
You can't blame me for not having the HolQeD, as I explained before I can't
get it...
Qapla'
beHwI"av