tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 04 05:18:45 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: S26
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: S26
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:21:11 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
I have passed by a substantial collection of responses to this,
and find myself compelled to throw my opinion in as well. I
completely agree with peHruS on this one. No way, no how can you
use the pseudo-word *'e''e'*. The very idea makes my skin crawl.
There are very few rules that can be consistently applied to
chuvmey. {'e'} is not just another pronoun. It has only one
grammatical function and that does not justify the use of ANY
suffixes. There are no canon examples of any suffixes on it and
no rules in TKD that would justify it.
If the idea crosses your mind, just forget it. Adding suffixes
to {'e'} is a bad idea. Just don't go there.
charghwI'
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 01:38:09 -0700 (PDT) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 97-06-21 02:27:08 EDT, qoror writes:
>
> << Ah, I forgot that. (By the way, {'e'} actually -could- have {-'e'} on it.
> {-'e'} is an exception to the other Type 5 suffixes because when it's on, it
> doesn't have to indicate something other than the subject or object.
> {'e''e'}
> could be used for something such as "I know -that-.")
> >>
>
> I tend to disagree that {'e'} could take any Noun suffixes. It is not a
> Noun. It is a Pronoun.
>
> peHruS