tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 30 18:22:04 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC:Web/Warriors



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?


Back to archive top level