tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 28 12:11:12 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Re[2]: Appropriateness (was Re: RotterdamDaq qep'a)

• From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Re[2]: Appropriateness (was Re: RotterdamDaq qep'a)
• Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:10:53 -0400 (EDT)
• In-reply-to: <v01520d05adf7999e4ca5@[205.139.170.201]> ([email protected])

>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:08:01 -0700
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)

>Andre Seesink writes:
>>          maj. jItlhIj, pItlh'a
>>          good. I apologise, but it's done.

>I'm not sure {pItlh} is all that appropriate here; it works, but {rIntaH}
>seems better to me.

"pItlh" vImaS jIH.  chaq Sar Qapla'lIj (ugh. That's probably bad.)

~mark

• References:
  • Re[2]: Appropriateness (was Re: RotterdamDaq qep'a)
    • From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)

• Prev by Date: Re: KLBC: jIlIHegh vIneH
• Next by Date: Re: --no subject--
• Prev by thread: Re[2]: Appropriateness (was Re: RotterdamDaq qep'a)
• Next by thread: Re: Appropriateness (was Re: RotterdamDaq qep'a)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level