It was just a suggestion, not a calling out. I saw a message, a response to the message, an explanation of the original message, and an apology for the misunderstanding in the original response, and an explanation following the apology of the … And I thought I had a suggestion for what might have originally been better communication. It was only a suggestion. It’s certainly not a rule, nor in any way intended to be a harsh critique.
On Nov 1, 2021, at 11:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI':
Maybe if you provided an actual example instead of inventing a grammatical template out of proprietary terms like “meHed noun”, there would have been less misinterpretation and need for explanation. This isn’t Klingon. It’s meta-Klingon.
Let me ask you something; how many times in the past haven't we used in this list the "proprietary terms" of {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed nouns? Why did you feel the need to react *now*?
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org