tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 26 22:36:42 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: More than one rover?
- From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: More than one rover?
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:31:23 +0000
>While reading TKD again, I noticed that on page 48/49 the example
>"nuQaw'qu'be' " is given. And although it clearly contains TWO rovers,
>pojwI' (the program) does not mark it as wrong.
>
>Does that mean then, that unlike other suffixes rovers may be used more
>than once per word? It surely would be fitting, as the two rovers(-qu'
>and -be' in this example) do not exclude each other, as the other
>suffixes do.
Well, perhaps {-Qo'} and {-be'} can't be used together (although perhaps
they can), but {-Ha'be'qu'} certainly seems plausible.
And not all the other suffixes exclude each other sematically - consider
{-lu'} and {-laH}.
>If so - shouldn t the rovers then be grouped too?
I quote MO, discussing the inclusion of {-Ha'} with the rovers::
It was felt best not to argue with Klingon tradition.
>Christoph
Sangqar
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus