tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 20 12:40:43 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
• Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:38:29 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)

Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> Not to be a contrarian or anything, but what about the proverb
> {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH}? I know MO originally said he
> couldn't make relative clauses work as anything but subjects or
> objects, except here he did.

He couldn't make the head noun of a relative clause be anything other 
than the subject or object *of the relative clause*, not of the main 
sentence.

-- 
SuStel
Stardate 9469.7

• References:
  • Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
    • From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
• Next by Date: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
• Previous by thread: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
• Next by thread: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level