tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 15 22:28:33 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jItlhob Hoch
- From: "eric d. zay" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jItlhob Hoch
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 01:32:31 -0500
Hmmm That's a good point. I just checked my Klingon dictionary, and there
does not seem to be a precedent for <rq> or <rQ>. So *SarIq* or *SarIQ*
are more likely to be correct here.
SuSvaj
----------
> From: Saito <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: jItlhob Hoch
> Date: Monday, December 16, 1996 12:53 AM
>
> >such. However, it should probably be spelled *Sarq* or *SarQ*, and
> >pronounced *shark*, or *sharkh* more or less.
>
> The -rQ- or -rq- combination is not legitimate, is it?
> I would guess Sark to transliterate as {SarIq}
>
> jej