tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 06 19:00:05 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: HaDIbaHpu' le' mach
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: HaDIbaHpu' le' mach
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 23:01:18 -0500
ghItlh 'etlhqengwI':
>> [I'd probably have used the word {Ha'DIbaHHom} to refer to them (or, just
>> maybe, {yIHHey}).]
>
>yIHHey would seem to carry an element of distaste, which I didn't
>want to express. Ha'DIbaHHom works better than using "mach" to
>express size. Is it OK to have used the <pu'> plural? These
>"animals" *are* talking.
Yep, {-pu'} is appropriate. I noticed it about thirty seconds after I
hit "send"... I considered writing a followup note pointing out the
odd but correct usage, but it was already well after midnight and I
needed to go to sleep.
>> >lutvam boyajlaHbe'chugh, tera'ngan Hol vIlI'qang.
>>
>> lutqoqvam vIyaj. wa'logh <machwI' yab je> vIleghpu'.
> ^^^^
>I used "story" because I couldn't devise a way to say "conversation"
>or "dialogue". Suggestions?
{ja'chuqghach}?
>> 'ach "NARF" vIyajbe'chu'. DaQIjlaH'a'? QIjlaH'a' vay'?
>
><Australia>Daq ghoS machwI'.
>vaj, DaHjaj, <Australia>ngan jupwI' vItlhob
>muQIjlaHchugh, SoHvad De' vI'ang
De' vIloS 'ach lI' 'e' vIpIHbe'.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj