tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 29 23:24:55 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: pagh (was latlh)

• From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: pagh (was latlh)
• Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 23:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On Sat, 29 Apr 1995, Jeremy Cowan wrote:

> I don't see how this relates to my post.  Or does it?

Yes, I thought it did.  In my reply, I was disagreeing with your 
translations.  I was explaining why I thought your translation {no' pagh} 
and {no'lI' pagh} was incorrect by demonstrating how Section 5.2 says 
numbers are to be used.

> janSIy

yoDtargh

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: pagh (was latlh)
    • From: Jeremy Cowan <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: pagh (was latlh)
    • From: Jeremy Cowan <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Spring Issue of HolQeD
• Next by Date: Re: vIHadbogh Holmey
• Prev by thread: Re: pagh (was latlh)
• Next by thread: Re: pagh (was latlh)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level