tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 17 18:40:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: ghomvaD wa'DIch jabbI'IDwIj
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: ghomvaD wa'DIch jabbI'IDwIj
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:39:54 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromMarian Schwartz on Sun, 16 Mar 1997 08:42:51 -0800 (PST))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 08:42:51 -0800 (PST)
>From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
>
>ghItlh SuStel
>>majQa'! I didn't know the word {lurgh}! That's good!
>One thing that's necessary is that you have to be able to use {-Daq} phrases
>on relative clauses. I don't know if we can, but I would suppose so.<
>
>Yeah, I think that if you can't, the structure of relative clauses is restricted
>way too much. By the way, <lurgh> is in the Addendum. --qoror
Don't be so sure. Ask 'Iwvan or nIchyon. There is no shortage of existing
natural languages which manage fine with very restricted relative clauses
(though I think that's restrictions on which noun can be the head-noun, not
the role of the clause in the matrix. And regarding that, we have canon,
the line about fools fighting in a burning house).
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMy4AdsppGeTJXWZ9AQE/ywL8CaA4nw3w3jnRrWTrapRLyBaIDnKO/M7z
C3bLwOaMH6GBFcL0iiyxLuPw2GMBbMFiXTEv6c9IXPfWsGbg46tH+Ey9VnkHHAgF
M1f6n4LY4RYn5oujKCuTh0iMxcD6ydSD
=dK+B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----