tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 05 17:49:42 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: suffix-o-mania

• From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
• Subject: Re: suffix-o-mania
• Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:53:11 -0500

wovwI' writes:
>I thought I understood, but the next posting I looked at contained the
>sentence: <Saghbe'taH QujwI'pu'mo' vIng SuStel.> I would have put the
>-mo' on the verb instead. Please explain more about -mo'.

I would have put {-mo'} on the verb too, if I had written correctly. :-/

ghItlh SuStel:
>Qaghlaw' ghunchu'wI'.  <Saghbe'taHmo' QujwI'pu'> jatlhnIS.

DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.

>'ej jIvIngbe'pu'!  jIbeppu' neH.  {{:-)

mu' vIlo'bogh vIparbe'. :-)

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

• Prev by Date: Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
• Next by Date: Re: teSwIj vIqeq
• Prev by thread: Re: suffix-o-mania
• Next by thread: Re:
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level