tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 25 14:01:22 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: agentive -wI'

From: <>

> So, are you saying that you have no problem with {QomnISlaw'wI'}? You
> think Okrand should include that in his next vocabulary list?

Nobody's saying that it should be lexicalized.  You're back in
all-or-nothing mode.  Here, have a cup of gray.  Personally, I don't have a
problem with someone using 'throw-away" /-wI'/ words as they do "throw-away"
/-bogh/ clauses.

> > ja' SuStel:
> > >nuq Qub ...uh... ghunchu'wI'?  pongDaj choHnIS'a'?
> >
> > jaS pongwIj vIwIvta' rut vIneH, 'ach mubepmoHbe' pabDaj.
> > pongwIj vIghajbogh vIpoltaH.
> Your name has become part of the common vocabulary. I have no problem with

My line was a joke, but your response is interesting.  You would have had a
problem with it once upon a time?

Stardate 2154.1

Back to archive top level