tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 25 00:02:03 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: That's not canon
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: That's not canon
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:01:18 EST
In a message dated 3/25/2004 1:27:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Anyways, different people have different standards about what
constitutes "canon" usage, and this is a greyish case.
Why are headless <-bogh> clauses controversial? Are there rules
which can be interpreted as allowing/forbidding them? In
saying that I didn't consider <Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'> to be
canon, I wasn't implying by any means that I thought headless
<-bogh> clauses were illegal. I tried writing a few headless
<-bogh> clauses and they do look odd to me, but that's probably
just because they aren't used much or I haven't seen many of
them.
qon De'vId
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
ok! yapmev. lol. jImISbejqu'! nuq "cannon" "headless <bogh> clause" je?
mu'meyvam yIQIj!
reH taHjaj tlhIngan Hol!
weQqul
bIjatlhnISchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh!
HovpoH 701330.4
Stardate 4230.8