tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 09 07:47:02 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

jang. ja' <blah, blah, blah>

ja' DloraH:

> ... after TKD we have the interview in HolQeD 28
> (Dec 98) p7 "He asked me. He said, 'blah, blah, blah.'"


> DloraH's "jang. ja' <blah, blah, blah>" construction seems
> to be the accepted wisdom these days. Is ghunchu'wI'
> casting doubt on this ('e' vItulbej)? I've written some
> brief verses with dialogue, and the forced repetition
> of *ja'* is getting awfully monotonous.

ghIq pagh QInvam vItu':

> When I say <jang vay':> in a message, I don't mean
> "Someone answered the following", I just mean
> "someone answered". I've also used quote lines like
> <mu' <veb> qel charghwI', ghunchu'wI' je:> or <ghoH
> DoghwI'pu':>. The point of the sentence is *NOT*
> that the quote is its object; it just describes the quote
> that follows and (most importantly) attributes it to
> whoever wrote it in the first place.

toH!  Then "jIjang: <blah, blah, blah>" works as well as "jIjang. jIja' 
<blah, blah, blah>"? What a relief! And is "<blah, blah, blah> jIjang" 
kosher too?


Back to archive top level