tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 25 18:22:43 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Headers. Yet again.
reH Suvrup SuvwI''a'!
SuStel
Stardate 2483.2
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Headers. Yet again.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Headers. Yet again.
>
>
> > > > Again, he's not saying it can't, just that it hasn't.
> > >
> > >I really think he's saying it can't BECAUSE it hasn't.
> > >
> > >I'm saying maybe it can, but it doesn't. And that the only way we'll
> find
> > >out about those that do is if Okrand tells us.
> >
> > From charghwI's posts, it sounds like he's a strict descriptivist. For
a
> > strict decriptivist, there's no difference between 'doesn't appear' and
> > 'isn't allowed'. Any deviation from what normally appears is considered
> > highly marked. If a native speaker used it, other native speakers would
> > understand, but they would also know it broke the rules.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> >
>