tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 18 12:13:26 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qID
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:48:42 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> 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