tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 17 17:44:50 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jItlhob Hoch
- From: "eric d. zay" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jItlhob Hoch
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 20:49:00 -0500
> > > On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:34:12 -0800 "eric d. zay"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > ..
> > > > > The -rQ- or -rq- combination is not legitimate, is it?
> > > > > I would guess Sark to transliterate as {SarIq}
'e' vIghItlhpu'be!!!
I had posted a message saying that *Sark* would probably be pronounced
according to the spelling of *Sarq* or *SarQ*. The above line was written
in response, pointing out that there was no precedent in Klingon speech for
<rq> or <rQ>, and I now agree.
Eric D Zay a.k.a SuSvaj