Often I've wondered, "why klingon doesn't have an adverbializer" ? Recently, I read in a style-writing guide, something very interesting with regards to the use of adverbs in fse. According to the article, when you use adverbs in fse, what you're actually doing is "telling" the reader what's happening. But if you want your writing to be more direct, then it's preferable to "show" to your reader, instead of just "tell" him. Meaning, that instead of relying on an adverb, you need to describe what that adverb actually tries to convey. Example: She looked at him lustfully. Suppose we had the klingon word+adverbializer to say *exactly* this sentence: {adverb, leghta'} Now, suppose we wrote the sentence, by describing the meaning of the adverb instead: {loDvam leghpu'; leghpu'DI', SIbI', nom joqchoHpu' tIqDaj, porghDaj jaltaHvIS, 'ej ngaghchuq 'e' jalchoHDI'..} The second way is more direct, than just throwing in an adverb at the beginning of a sentence, and game over. At least that's what that article was saying.. Now, whether this is the reason, or one of the reasons why klingon doesn't have an adverbializer, this is another story. ~ mayqel qunen'oS