tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 31 21:03:15 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: it; SIS

Shamammd ([email protected])



In a message dated 3/31/2004 9:22:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:
You know, you have seriously pissed me off here.  You've completely removed
the context of my point, and gone on to be really prissy.
I do not find DloraH's second-hand account of Okrand's words to be
completely reliable.  This is not to say that I don't trust DloraH's
memory -- it's a second-hand account, so the exact wording of the
information can't be analyzed too closely.  And because the wording IS
rather roundabout to begin with, I naturally (I thought) wondered whether
the elided subject of /SIS/ really MUST BE /'eng/.

So when the topic came up, I asked someone to tell me what the subject of
/'eng/ is -- and all anybody could do was say it was so obvious that it's
not mentioned.  Nobody -- at all -- actually declared the oh-so-obvious
subject of /SIS/ until you finally screamed /'eng/.  I think everybody was
dancing around actually answering the question because they weren't sure.
That sounds like community uncertainty to me, and worthy of discussion.

I don't know what bug crawled up your ass recently, but take it out right
now.  If you're not interested in talking about it, don't.  And don't accuse
me of misinforming people, because if it's as well-documented and obvious as
you say, then why should they believe little ol' me?  Geez.

qon SuStel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
taghbej mu'qaDveS! chaq Suyajbe'chuq. chaq botaghnISqa'. maghoj wIneHmo' 
naDev maH 'ej  law'be'  maH. maSuvchuqnISbe' .  :)

Curse warfare has definitely begun! Maybe you guys misunderstood each other. 
Maybe you should start over. We are here to learn and we are not many. We do 
not need to fight with  each other. :)

i wanted to say "and there are not many of us", (learning this language) but 
i wasn't sure about this construction: <<'ej maH law' tu'lu'be'.>> does anyone 
have any thoughts on this?

reH taHjaj tlhIngan Hol!

weQqul
bIjatlhnISchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh!
HovpoH 701358.6
Stardate 4249.6






Back to archive top level