tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 05 05:55:54 2012

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs

Klingonteacher ([email protected])

From: Klingonteacher <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:55:17 +0200
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
List-archive: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/>
List-id: <tlhingan-hol.stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
List-subscribe: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
References: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0

ghItlh QeS 'utlh:

As Qov said, Marc basically implied that -Ha' is *grammatically* legal
on any adverb, but for some it's semantically nonsensical. It was

I just wrote an email starting with "sorry for not answering sooner" andI wrote {tughHa' jIjangmo' jItlhIj}.

I think that would be understandable, right? Even in english "un-soon"is quite close to "late".


Lieven.


_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
  - From: Felix Malmenbeck <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
  - From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
Next by Date: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
Previous by thread: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
Next by thread: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
Index(es):