tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 09 02:08:44 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {nuq} in "What is" constructions
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> I can't for the life of my locate the source, but I'm certain we've had
> confirmation from Marc Okrand that the /nuq/ and /'Iv/ work as "to be" just
> as regular pronouns do. It would seem not to matter what order you put the
> words in.
Wasn't this covered in Krankor's Grammarian's Desk Reference?
Ah yes, flipped right to it. p23. Not sure it was ever "officially
confirmed", but the whole issue was dealt with there...
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"No matter where you go, there you are."