tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 05 21:48:06 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: E pluribus unum
On Sun, 5 Mar 1995, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >How about: wa' chenmoH law'wI'.
> >or: wa' moj law'wI'.
>
> It's weird. I didn't agree with Glen Proechel's article in HolQeD recently
> (in which he objects to constructions like the one you just did), so I
> ought to like using "law'wI'". I thought of it too. But for an
> inexplicable reason, I don't really like the sound of it, even if you threw
> in the redundant plural marker and made it law'wI'mey. I guess we all have
> our little preferences.
>
> Oh, and it should be "luchenmoH" and "lumoj", shouldn't it?
bIlugh. bong mojaq vInop. jagh DajeymeH nIteb yISuvrup.
> >yoDtargh
> ~mark
yoDtargh