tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 01 12:37:57 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[none]
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: [none]
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 12:37:57 -0400
>([email protected])
Subject: Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
>Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 09:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Elizabeth C. Hoyt" <[email protected]>
>Ok, I think you finally got this pounded through my thick forehead
>yesterday afternoon. N1 possesses N2. You're talking about a type of N2.
>Do not confuse N1 for an adjective.
>So {paq ngaSwI'} works for book container, but NOT {nav paq} for a book
>made of paper.
See my previous post. I don't think it has to be possession, and I don't
have evidence that "book made of paper" CAN'T be "nav paq". I was just
giving you my opinion that it *may* not work.
>> How to say it without using N-N? Tough. Maybe "yIH'e' chenmoHbogh yuch",
>> or in a separate sentence: "yIH'e' chenmoHlu'meH yuch lo'lu'" and then just
>> referring to it as "yIH".
>chocolate, which causes the tribble to take form
>someone/something uses chocolate for causing the tribble to take form
>Tough is right.
I was trying to use "chenmoH" for "to comprise", not quite "to cause to
form." Hmm.
~mark