Re: KLBC: chay' mu'meyvam lo'lu'?

[SoberAlien@aol.com]

jijatlh:
>For what it's worth (and since it is my sentence), I agree with Voragh.  I 
>first wrote {ta' qIp puqvetlh 'e' ngIl}, for the reason Voragh gives, but 
>then considered that the subject of {ngIl} would be ambiguous if I didn't 
>state it.  (Although, in reality, who would think it was the emperor who was 
>daring to be hit by the child?)

Correction:  It was ghunchu'wI' I was agreeing with, not Voragh.

-Sengval