[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[Robyn Stewart]

At 14:36 '?????' 6/5/2012, David Trimboli wrote:
>On 6/5/2012 3:51 PM, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv wrote:
>
>>In this single area of grammar, I get the sense that your personal,
>>passionate, focussed study into linguistics has connected to an idea
>>about language in general and you've come to a conclusion about the
>>Type 7 verb suffix that simply doesn't fit either the description in
>>TKD or the majority of canon.
>
>It fits exactly. The majority of canon supports my opinion completely. I
>do not have paq'batlh, so I cannot comment on it, and I consider it
>suspect anyway, since it was edited by individuals who hold the
>erroneous definition of aspect that I am fighting against.

I was there for the editing and I don't recall any instance of 
changing/adding/deleting aspect suffixes from my side of the table 
(we were divided into two groups).  Does anyone else? It's possible 
we took out some that violated the after 'e' rule, but we certainly 
did not engage in a wholesale deletion of aspect suffixes that Marc 
had placed there. If there had been a use of aspect suffixes that we 
found contrary to our feelings, we would have asked about them. I 
think pretty much everyone's goal is to learn more about the language 
as it should be, not propagate our personal visions of it.

I so wish we had video of the process!

- Qov