tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 20 10:05:37 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: law'/puS

• From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: law'/puS
• Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:05:34 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> ([email protected])

>Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:17:51 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected]

>canonical and so, we have to deal with it the same way we deal with Okrand's
>{Hub'eghrupHa'} and so forth.

Did Okrand really say *that*?  Where?  When?  I don't remember it.  It
breaks rules, too: -Ha' is supposed to precede all other suffixes.  What
gives with this???

~mark

• References:
  • Re: law'/puS
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: qaqaD results
• Next by Date: Re: Klinzhai
• Prev by thread: Re: law'/puS
• Next by thread: Re: law'/puS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level