tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 06 14:42:52 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: logh veQ
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: logh veQ
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:37:57 -0700
veHna' Hutlh muD. yuQvo' ghoSlu'taHvIS, QIt lojchoH muD. <yuQ muD 'el
...> wIjatlhtaH, 'ej muD veH wIqel: veHvam wa' DopDaq muD tu'lu', 'ej
latlh DopDaq muD tu'be'lu'. 'ach veHvam wItu'chu'be': SaH muD chay' net
juv? veH Daq SIghchu' juvmeH mIw. noch 'Itlhqu' lo'lu'taHvIS, muD qubqu'
juvlaH, vaj Hopqu' veH net 'ang. noch 'Itlhbe' lo'lu'taHvIS, Sum veH net
'ang.
{muD qub} vIchup.
SKI: pagh longwindedly explains why {muD veH} is not a particularly good
term.
pagh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William H. Martin [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 2:02 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: KLBC: logh veQ
>
> According to Alan Anderson:
> > According to Edy:
> > > There are few air molecules which cause friction and cause
> > >the deceleration of the satellites. I didn't have a name for
> > >molecule :-((
> >
> > Collectively, air molecules make up something called "atmosphere".
> > Individual molecules don't have a significant effect on the velocity
>
> > of a satellite; it's the rarefied air as a whole that slows it down.
>
> > If you don't like calling a near-vacuum {muD}, how about {muDHom}?
>
> How about {muD veH} or {muD HeH}?
>
> > -- ghunchu'wI' (Edy's mentor)
>
> charghwI'