tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 18 21:28:09 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: plans
- Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 97-10-17 14:46:10 EDT, ghunchu'wI' writes:
<< ja' muHwI':
>chay' thlIngan Duj chenlu' 'e' vIlegh vIneH.
>tlhIngan Duj vIchenmoH vIneH.
toH. tlhIngan Duj qoD cha'bogh nab Danej'a'?
tlhIngan Duj Som neH Dalegh DaneH'a'?
DujHomqoq mach DalaghHa' 'e' DanIDqanglaw'.
Duj naQ DachenmoH 'e' DaHech'a'? :-)
-- ghunchu'wI' >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Is your answer of the question of muHwI' without challenging his grammatical
construction a sanction of this construction? muHwI' wrote:
chay' tlhIngan Duj chenlu' 'e' vIbej vIneH
HoD Qanqor and I have used this construction, but some, including SuStel and
~mark, have claimed it is not correct. They have stated that {chay'} and
other Klingon question words are not relative clause markers. I still think
that we only need to look at the above as two separate sentences, the first
being a question.
peHruS