tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 30 18:22:04 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:Web/Warriors
- From: Intlangsch <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC:Web/Warriors
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 21:19:49 EST
- Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
In a message dated 97-12-26 11:04:54 EST, you write:
>>Do you really think {poH nI'} makes a good direct object for
>>{yIn}?
>>charghwI', taghwI' pabpo' ru'
>>Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30 >>
I really don't see "a lengthy period of time" not being a valid object, but I
am
not a language person, just an interested party. I asked someone else about
it and he responded:
<<There are no contra-indications that Klingon, unlike Terran languages,
<<does not possess an accusative of time. An alternate form might be:
<<nI'jaj yInjaj 'ej bIchepjaj! What does canon say on the matter of
<<expressions of duration of time? Anything?
Anything from Voragh the canon expert?