tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 23 23:28:58 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dajatlhbogh
- From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Dajatlhbogh
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 04:27:52 +0000
>The difference is that some insist that Question As Object *is* correct,
>it's *obviously* correct, and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong.
>The closest we get to that with Headless Relatives is that both its
>strongest detractors and most zealous supporters say it's *probably* not
>breaking any rules, while usually agreeing that it's undesireably vague in
>most cases.
I've been on the list almost a year, and I've seen QAO rear its head twice.
Both times it's been those against QAO who have insisted that it isn't
correct, that it obviously isn't correct, and that anyone who disagrees is
just plain wrong, to the point of invective when I asked (as someone who
knew nothing about the long-standing feud) for canon support that it was
ungrammatical. Apparently in the past it was the pro-QAO faction who
adopted this strategy.
But you haven't really answered my question. If the difference between
headless relatives and QAO is that some get fanatical over QAO, what is the
difference between them that causes that fanaticism? Or is that just one of
the Mysteries of the List?
>-- ghunchu'wI'
Sangqar
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com