[tlhIngan Hol] {ghIq} {ngugh} and time adverbs with time stamps

[mayqel qunen'oS]

jIH:
> people keep repeating his words,
> as if some kind of gum which they keep chewing over and over
SuStel:
> When I tell people to break up complex sentences

Please don't misunderstand me; I wasn't directing these words to you.

The thing which bled through my words, was my aversion to the
nonproductive habit of some people, advising to "break up complex
sentences", without at the same time proposing valid solutions. I love
reading your replies because you always back up with arguments the
things you suggest; yes, you often advise to "keep things simple", but
this advice comes after your analysis of the matter which is being
discussed. And I've never had a problem with that.

What I do have a problem with, is someone condemning the choices of
others, saying "no, don't do that, keep it simple", without at the
same time offering alternatives. Of course no one is obligated to
answer anything. But if someone chooses to answer, then he should
write something worth reading.

This whole matter reminds me something I read once.. In ancient
Athens, everyone was allowed to criticize a law he didn't like; but he
was *severely* punished if at the same time, he didn't propose an
alternate law, justifying why it is better.

Whenever a question regarding grammar is asked, the way to proceed is simple:

Step A: Someone gives a definite answer (if there's one).
Step B: If there isn't one, someone can venture a guess, describing
the arguments which support his opinion.
Step C: After A/B, *then* he can say "but you don't need to use what
you're suggesting at all, because klingon tries to avoid such
constructions/grammar/etc".

Step A and step B are helpful and productive, and I believe that's
what we're here for. Step C after A/B is ok, but customarily skipping
to Step C is meaningless and ridiculous.

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ