tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 19 20:21:28 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: targhmey
- From: "QeS la'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: targhmey
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:21:14 +1000
- Bcc:
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