tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 02 08:57:56 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu- (was Re: yIHmey)
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: mu- (was Re: yIHmey)
- Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>(message from Steven Boozer on Tue, 29 Apr 1997 08:01:28 -0700 (PDT))
>Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 08:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>
>: << jIHvaD jang charghwI': >>
>:
>: Sorry about the previous message. I was looking at something else. I do NOT
>: prefer {mujang charghwI'}.
>:
>: peHruS
>
>Why? It seems perfectly kosher to me.
Seems okay to me too, but there is no small amount of stylistic debate over
it. peHruS apparently doesn't like it in this usage. Neither, I believe,
do charghwI' and SuStel. I'm not so down on it.
Actually, I'm not sure this falls into the categories I'm thinking of for
Sustel's and charghwI''s opinions. But I can certainly see preferring the
-vaD method.
~mark