Re: KLBC challenge

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

On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:07:44 -0400 Carleton Copeland 
<copeland@eycis.com> wrote:

> ja' charghwI' 'utlh:
> 
> I just thought that since you wanted to explain grammatical rules to me, I 
> should explain a couple to you.
> 
> 
> reH Suvrup SuvwI''a'!  I'll *argue* with a /pabpo'/, but never presume to 
> *explain* grammar (still less to an /'utlh/).  *pab qaQIjmoHmeH 'eb pup 'oH 
> qaDlIj'e'* was supposed to mean: *Your challenge is a perfect opportunity 
> to get you (I make you) to explain grammar*.  Where did I go wrong?

I think I made more of a mistake than you did. You used the 
{qa-} prefix to indicate the Indirect Object. There is a 
shortcut rule to allow you to do this, but it is uncommon to use 
this with {-moH}. I don't think it has been done in canon, 
though it is probably fine to do it. Meanwhile, if I'm sleep 
deprived and I see {pab qaQIj...} I read it as "I explain 
grammar to you". I suffered a stack overflow and failed to 
process the suffixes. You were correct. It was my error.

HIvqa' veqlargh!
 
> qa'ral

charghwI' 'utlh