<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/4/2020 8:59 AM, Hugh Son puqloD
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1EE02F65-DFC0-4DF6-B12F-664BB3482210@qeylIS.net">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Feb 4, 2020, at 01:05, De'vID <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com></a> wrote:
I'm still interested in people's <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>opinions<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> of a construction like {cha'logh neH} though. Would they accept it? Would they use it?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>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 <b>neH</b> 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 <b>neH</b> to
be there for those reasons, I would ask the author to reword it to
avoid uncertain grammar.</p>
<p>As a writer, I would follow those same guidelines.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>