tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 12 08:38:09 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: toQDujwIj vIQaw'law'

Scott Willis ([email protected])

• From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: toQDujwIj vIQaw'law'
• Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:27:44 -0500
• References: <PLJH3YFDZTXV21A51UA9D1TKIDB94RL.402b521e@quvar>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar)" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: toQDujwIj vIQaw'law'


> Am 11.02.2004 21:49:04, schrieb Steven Boozer
<[email protected]>:
>
> >but it turns out that we already have the
> >perfect word: {QanwI'}  "guard" (lit. "protector"), the protective armor
> >plating around a wing cannon on -- wait for it! -- a {toQDuj}!
>
> Sorry for asking again, is this a canon definition, or yours?
> Quvar.

It's canon. From the BoP poster, technical callout #31: {tal QanwI'} "Cannon
Guard"

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701158.9

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: toQDujwIj vIQaw'law'
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: toQDujwIj vIQaw'law'
    • From: Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: DCKL translation question: argueing arguments
• Next by Date: Re: nom ghel, nom jang
• Prev by thread: Re: toQDujwIj vIQaw'law'
• Next by thread: Re: toQDujwIj vIQaw'law'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level