tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 22:08:12 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sentence as Object
- From: "WATT FAMILY" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:05:34 +1000
how do i get out of send back to [email protected]
----------
> From: [email protected]
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
> Date: Sunday, 9 November 1997 15:43
>
> In a message dated 97-11-07 08:57:42 EST, you write:
>
> << Well, if you could provide a translation of a question as an
> object IN ITS ENTIRETY without removing the question mark,
> dropping the "that" and fudging the words around until it looks,
> in English, like a relative clause, then perhaps I could begin
> to take your argument a little bit seriously. Meanwhile, you
> have not managed to do this even once. You just dodge the issue.
> You ignore it. >>
>
> peHruS here:
>
> Okay, you have started to understand the difference in our points. You
think
> I am trying to substitute relative clause translations for SAO/QAO
> translations. Wrong!!!
>
> I am trying to point out clearly for you all what TKD 6.2.5 really says.
You
> have been refusing to believe it. You merely ramble on about a different
> topic altogether: relative clauses. I have always said they work just
fine
> with the TKD section regarding realtive clauses, TKD 6.2.3.
>
> You understand now? There are two completely distinct sections in
Klingon
> grammar. But, do you see that you, not I, have been trying to confuse
> them??? Equate them?
>
> peHruS