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.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org