tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 01 09:33:36 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC challenge
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC challenge
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:33:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:07:44 -0400 Carleton Copeland
<[email protected]> 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