tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 04 10:41:02 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)

Doq ([email protected])



On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:30 PM, ...Paul wrote:

> I'd like to sum up the discussion around purpose clauses, in a
> non-partisan way...
> However, since it is unwieldy to define a term that then changes  
> based on
> usage, it seems more... convenient (for lack of a better term) to  
> craft a
> noun phrase that does NOT change on usage, such as /rarbogh mu'/ --  
> which
> remains the same if you're saying /rarbogh mu' yIlo'/ or /mu'tlhegh
> DararmeH rarbogh mu' Dalo'nIS/...
>
> That's my argument in a nutshell, all circling back to the original  
> point
> -- what do we call a conjunction?  :)

chuvmey.

> ...Paul
>
>           ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
>    ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
>      "Understanding human needs is half the job of meeting them"
>                          -- Adlai Stevenson


Doq





Back to archive top level