[tlhIngan Hol] {neH} after {-logh} or {ben}

[SuStel]

On 2/4/2020 8:59 AM, Hugh Son puqloD wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2020, at 01:05, De'vID<de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> I'm still interested in people's*opinions*  of a construction like {cha'logh neH} though. Would they accept it? Would they use it?
> I use this construction from time to time without thinking about it, usually followed by a realization that I don’t actually know if I can use it. I would accept it if somebody else used it, though I am fairly permissive and accept many things which I know not to be supported by canon.

If I were just a reader coming across this, I would silently acknowledge 
it to myself and move on. If I were an editor for something that was 
trying to be formally correct, I would ask the author to reword it to 
avoid uncertain grammar. If I were an editor for something that wasn't 
trying to be formally correct and needed the *neH* there for metrical or 
other reasons, I would let it pass. If I were an editor for something 
that wasn't trying to be formally correct but didn't need the *neH* to 
be there for those reasons, I would ask the author to reword it to avoid 
uncertain grammar.

As a writer, I would follow those same guidelines.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200204/191e04d9/attachment-0016.htm>