tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 14 17:47:02 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re[4]: }} Re: (no subject)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re[4]: }} Re: (no subject)
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 95 16:47:02 EST
On Mon, 14 Aug 1995 ~mark wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:35:40 -0500
>>From: [email protected] (Soqra'tIS)
>>ghItlh r'Hul (~r-r-r-r-r'Hul vIjatlhta' >}};-) ):
majQa' Soqra'tIs! {{:-) >
>>>On Mon, 14 Aug 1995 ~mark wrote:
>>>
>>>>I also liked the one about "che'taH tlhInganpu', boltaH
>>>>tera'nganpu'"... tho that too works best in English.
>>>
>>>>:-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Ummm. I can't find <bol>. Help.
>Erg. <bol> is a one-way word, I'm afraid. Oops. It occurs on the
>English-to-Klingon side of the dictionary, but not the Klingon-to-Engish
>side. Look up "drool" in the E->K side. You can see why it works in
>English.
Ahhhh. Now it makes sense. Tee-hee.
>>>>~mark
>>>
>>>r'Hul
>
>>methinks honored sir had "{boj}" in mind... (hey, it fits!).
It fits? Ya gotta remember that it was an English play on words.
>Nope, honored sir was thinking a word that's hard to look up and unfairly
>didn't say so.
>~mark
No problemo. I just had to ask. It didn't kill me. Didn't even strain
<nItlhHomwIj> typing it. (Did I finally get my suffix order right?{{:-) >)
r'Hul