[88658] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ruben Molina)
Sun Jan 9 11:09:01 2011
In-Reply-To: <481186FA-234C-4C84-B94A-D467BEB86401@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:51:39 -0500
From: Ruben Molina <rmolina@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 2:32 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
<lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have no canon to support what you are suggesting, but it makes much more sense to me than anything others have suggested for years in terms of Question As Object (QyAO) constructions. Okrand kept the door open for there to be SOMETHING that worked as QAO. That's his style. He tends to want there to be possibilities he hasn't considered yet. Whenever he talked about QAO, it's generally been a response to specific suggestions that he rejected, mostly because people have tried to use {'e'} to represent the answer to the question instead of the question itself; they've been trying to use QAO as an alternative means of building a relative clause without using {-bogh}. The result sometimes makes sense in English, but it never makes sense in Klingon.
DaH jIyajchu'
> What you are suggesting does make sense in Klingon, to my ear, anyway. Others may think differently.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv qatlho'
vuDmey vIloStaH
ruben
