Re: qID

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:48:42 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson 
<aranders@netusa1.net> wrote:

> ja' SuSvaj:
> >...jang loD  "eerr...qabDaj DawovmoHpa' be'nalwI' ghaH 'e' vISovbe'."
> 
> jIHagh, 'ach chaq qIDvam rurbogh ghItlhvaD Daq pIm wISamnIS.

"I laugh, but perhaps we must find a different place for the 
benefit of the manuscript which resembles this joke."?

moH pab. Okay, fine. I'm a prude. Okrand gave us two rather
simple examples of relative clauses with only one noun in them 
that had {-Daq} on the noun. I don't like extending that to 
relative clauses with two nouns, one of which has {-vaD} tacked 
on to it. It can be deciphered with great effort, but it seems 
like an odd looseness with grammar for one who spent a couple 
years rebelling against the prefix shortcut for indirect 
objects...

> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI' 'utlh