tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 02 21:29:05 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DVD
From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
> ...Paul asks:
>
> >David Trimboli wrote:
> > > motlh pab taQ chennISmoHbogh Okrand vIparHa'. Hol DajmoH.
> >
> >Should there not be a -'e' emphasis on { pab } here? :)
>
> It wouldn't hurt. It's not required by the grammar, but it's often a good
> idea when the topic could be easily misconstrued or there's no context to
> rely on.
I typically leave off disambiguations that aren't really necessary. You DID
have no trouble understanding it.
> OTOH, if David actually meant *both* versions, not tagging the topic with
> {'e'} was a very subtle stylistic touch! Sometimes ambiguity can
sometimes
> be a good thing, even at the risk of it not being appreciated by everyone.
I named /yIH ghupbogh be' qan/ as I did for this very reason.
SuStel
Stardate 3006.6