tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 30 07:08:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: An interesting Scrabble idea
- From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: An interesting Scrabble idea
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:06:13 -0400
ghunchu'wI'vo':
> If we were using *my* Scrabble set, I wouldn't permit it. :-)
>
> >...{qIjDaq} [is] a perfectly legal word when it's preceeded by a
> >noun, so would it be considered a legal word in its own right?
>
> It's *only* a valid word in combination with a preceding noun. I don't
> consider it to have an independent meaning. I might have to think this
> through a bit, though; {-bogh} has a similar problem in that a headless
> relative clause doesn't make sense either.
True enough in Klingon, but not as a generalization. "Can I help who's next?" is a relative clause with no (a null) head noun. (I love the term 'headless relative'!)
> -- ghunchu'wI'
--Holtej