tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 21 16:54:20 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: paghHu'/paghleS

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 19:53:33 EDT

In a message dated 2004-05-21 10:37:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> Not every possible construction is productive.  

I take the position that EVERY possible construction is productive.  The 
language must have a means for expanding without resorting to canon and Okrand for 
every little detail.  Granted, the meanings of phrases like {paghHu'} are not 
attested in canon.  But the words are possible, and now there is a reasonable 
meaning for them.  

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: paghHu'/paghleS
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
  • Re: paghHu'/paghleS
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Next by Date: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Previous by thread: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Next by thread: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level