tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 13 15:06:42 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC> HaDIbaHpu' le' mach
According to Terry Donnelly:
...
> My intention in this sentence was to avoid a literal object. {Doch rap}
> seems too concrete to me; I think {Doch} should refer only to actual
> physical items. {ta'} seems more goal-oriented than Pinky's question
> warrants. So tell me this:
>
> Can you use a verb with {-bogh} by itself as an object? That is, can
> {wIqaSmoHtaHbogh} mean "that which we are doing"?
Try {Qu'maj}.
> - ter'eS
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |