tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 09 09:59:28 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {nuq} in "What is" constructions
From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> 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...
No, I mean I'm sure Okrand himself announced a finding on this topic, but I
can't locate it now.
SuStel
Stardate 3109.2