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

mayqel qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Tue Feb 4 00:32:01 PST 2020

> I know there's no canon to support it. 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 think some time ago (quite some time ago..), I had the same question too.

If I remember correctly, the matter was discussed, but again, no
definite answer could be produced, since there's no Ca'Non to actually
support (or reject it).

Now, if you're interested in my personal opinion (although I don't
think that my opinion carries any weight) ..

I'd definitely understand in a heartbeat the meaning of something like
{wa'logh neH vIghro' tIQ vI'uchpu'}.

But, I wouldn't use such a construction in a formal setting, since
there's no Ca'Non, which actually allows it.

I'd find other ways around this problem, such as:

{wa'logh vIghro' tIQ vI'uchpu', 'ej ghIq not Sarvam vighro' vI'uchqa'pu'}.

~ mayqel qunen'oS

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list