[2511] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: naDev jIchu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Jan 12 08:21:34 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: nsn@vis.mu.OZ.AU (Nick NICHOLAS)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 0:19:10 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9401112121.AA21989@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>; from "Will Martin" a
t Jan 11, 94 4:21 pm
batlh choja', Will Martin quv:
= If the {'e'} is supposed to refer to the previous sentence (a bit of a
=stretch, but okay in the right setting), having an adverb between the earlier
=sentence and {'e'} screws up the effect. Whether the wise ones believe the
=construction is legal or not, my opinion is that it is not easily understood,
=unlike everything else you said, which was perfect.
Its legality is attested in Krankor's article, HolQeD 1.2. I found it quite
understandable; then again, I've made something of an idiom of such usage,
after reading Qanqor's article.
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breather {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias
