tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 19 20:21:28 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: targhmey

QeS la' ([email protected])



ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI', ja':
>Must I remind you *again* of the counterexamples from TKD?
>    nuqDaq 'oH Qe' QaQ'e'
>    nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'
>It's NOT a rule.

jang lay'tel SIvten, ja':
>And even if it *is* a rule, albeit unwritten, it still has canon 
>exceptions.

SuStel often used to point out that just because a rule is broken, even if 
it's in canon, doesn't automatically invalidate the general case. We've seen 
plenty of other rules, even explicit ones, clearly broken in canon examples.

ter'eS also makes a good point in observing that these counterexamples are 
both questions; I just searched my own canon database, and of the dozen or 
so examples of pronoun plus {-taH} I turned up, not one was a question. The 
reverse may not be true, and this may be an artefact of the small sample 
size (I only found about a dozen examples of pronoun + {-taH} all up), but 
it's probably something to consider.

Savan,

QeS la'
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
Access your Hotmail straight from your i-mode mobile 
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fadsfac%2Enet%2Flink%2Easp%3Fcc%3DTEL175%2E16267%2E0&_t=751223833&_m=EXT






Back to archive top level