[1627] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: eD ngerwIgholpu' vItamchoHlaw'ta'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Oct 8 21:45:34 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 21:38:24 -0400
>Another question: Concerning what Qanqor commented about the vaguene
>of functiolingon question words, i.e., tha'Iv and nuq follow
>somewhat different rules than other nouns. Well, which of these would
>seem more appropriate?:
>
>- ghorgh 'oHpu' may'
>- ghorgh qaSpu' may'
That's easy, the second. That's because the first is grammatically
incorrect. {{:-) It needs to be: ghorgh 'oHpu' may''e'.
Aside from that, I think I'd still tend to favour the second. This
is one case where I do tend to agree with those who try to limit the
use of "to be" in tlhIngan Hol. But this is just a gut feeling,
nothing more.
--Krankor
