|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org In-Reply-To: <52A89FB1-1C4E-4898-B80B-CE4A8D3B42ED@insightbb.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:12:35 -0500 Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org It sounds like somebody has to talk to Okrand about this rather large gap in the grammar. If you would do it this way, but wouldn't encourage anyone else to do it, then how would you expect anyone else to understand you, since you'd be using grammar that you, yourself, can't recommend? And if SuStel doesn't like the distance as topic, where does that leave us in terms of a generally acceptable grammar for expressing the distance that one travels? I'm open to suggestions here. So far nothing I've come up with is generally acceptable, and distance as direct object isn't generally acceptable. Are we suggesting that Klingons just never talk about traveling over a measurable distance? Doq On Jan 8, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Alan Anderson wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Doq wrote: > >> You'd use distance as "a type of time stamp"? > > I was going to propose the same usage, calling it a "place stamp" by > analogy. It just seemed a natural way to express the idea. I find > no canon justification for it, however, so I won't encourage anyone > to do it that way. > > -- ghunchu'wI' > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |