[85138] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Relative clause fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Fri Oct 10 20:03:17 2008
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A67EF24D074F@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:01:13 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ja' Doq:
> Or maybe you should just say:
> JohnvaD tev lunob.
To preserve the implication that the idea is about John:
tev Hevbogh loD ghaH John'e'
Or even just
tev Hev John'e'
In fact, this is such an obvious and simple way to state the original
idea that I have to wonder why one would even consider the
complicated attempt at a beneficiary-headed relative clause.
-- ghunchu'wI'
