tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 19 10:43:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: plans
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: plans
- Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 14:35:16 UT
[email protected] on behalf of [email protected] wrote:
> 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.
I do not claim that it is incorrect. I claim that I don't *think* it is, and
I claim I don't like it. I also claim that Marc Okrand has not yet answered
this question put to him on MSN's forum, and I claim that there is no canon
with a question as object in it. Finally, I claim that until further evidence
comes in, I'll avoid using a questionable construction which I also dislike.
In other words, "ick."
And I think ~mark has made up his mind on the topic even less than I have,
though I'll let him answer to that when he catches up on his back mail.
Besides, this is easily recastable.
tlhIngan Duj chenmeH mIw vIbej vIneH.
tlhIngan Duj chenlu' vIbej vIneH.
SuStel
Stardate 97800.4