tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 09 23:24:41 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:24:20 EST
>bIv break (rules)
>
>Does this mean that "rules" or an equivalent noun must be the object (e.g.,
{c
>hut vIbIv})? Or does it mean that there should never be any object (e.g.,
{jIb
>Iv})? Or does it mean that you can decide whether to have an object?
>
the parenthisis generally give a guide line where one word is unclear in a
lone standing. In you example, bIv is specific to a type of thing to break.
In other words, the rules aren't really broknen in to seperate pieces, rather
they were not followed. By the parenthisis being around the subject word, it
would seem to insist, at least to me, that this word is inappropriate to use
for a synonym for words like shatter or discribing the verb for having
something come apart. A subject and object would be required as each
sentence varies.
-veS joH