SuStel:
My objection is the same whichever phrase you use.
I'm rather confused. Reading this thread, I understood the reasons which would raise objections with regards to the use of {maH Hoch}. And in particular, how the {maH Hoch} violates the accord rule. But I can't understand which rule is violated by {Hoch maH}. Is it ungrammatical or wrong ? And if yes, how ? Reading this thread, I can't understand how its use could be considered wrong. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not arguing just to argue. I sincerely can't understand how the {Hoch maH} could be considered wrong. ~ nI'ghma On Jan 28, 2018 16:21, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/28/2018 9:08 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
This is what mayqel threatened to do, and I'm pretty sure he's planning on using it in lieu of *ever* using a straight *maH.*
hahaha ! Actually I won't. The part where I said "I will be using it like there is no tomorrow", of my original message, meant: "I will be using it, if it is indeed correct".
Since there are doubts however, I will not use it at all. I *will* be using though (as if there's no tomorrow..) Rhona's {Hoch maH}. Because as I understand there's no objection against the use of it.
If there is though, then someone please do tell me, before I start using it.
My objection is the same whichever phrase you use. As some people are fond of saying, Klingon is not a code for English (or Greek). You don't just translate individual phrases one-to-one and just plug them into a formula to make a sentence. English users casually toss out *we all* and *you all* (usually as *y'all*) when they mean just *we* and *you (plural).* And only when they're speaking certain dialects of English.
If your sentence would make just as much sense without the *all,* LEAVE IT OUT.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org