tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 25 14:01:22 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: agentive -wI'
From: <[email protected]>
> So, are you saying that you have no problem with {QomnISlaw'wI'}? You
really
> 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
it.
My line was a joke, but your response is interesting. You would have had a
problem with it once upon a time?
SuStel
Stardate 2154.1