tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 02 14:36:26 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: paSlogh (was: Re: Resources)

Lieven Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: paSlogh (was: Re: Resources)
• Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:42:15 +0100 (MET)
• References: <[email protected]>

> bIlugh. taQbej. 'ej DaHjaj muSaghHa'moHbej. vaj jIqIDtaH:
> 
> reH chang'eng chenmoHjaj Hoch paSloghlIj!

chang'eng chenmoHlaHbe' Hoch paSlogh.
chang'eng luchenmoHlaHbej Hoch paSloghmey.
(but only if you have only two of them ;-)

reH tay'taHjaj paSloghlIj!
DaH jISaghchu'be' je jIH, 'ach reH Hol vIbuS net Sov.

loQ jImIS: 
reH chang'eng 'oS'a' paSlogh mu'??

You guys keep talking about "socks" using {chang'eng} and {paSlogh}.
If {paSlogh} does /not/ imlpy "pairs", then we cannot say {bID paSlogh}...
(I always thought of it as a pair of socks, but apparently it's just
inherently plural)

Okay, since Klingon is very short, I think a Klingon would never bother
about losing one sock. He'd just say 
   {paSloghwIj Qaw'lu' jay'}
   "My socks are destroyed"

Gee... whatta topic!!
I bet MO has never thought about that :-)

Quvar.

-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: paSlogh (was: Re: Resources)
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: paSlogh (was: Re: Resources)
    • From: "Agnieszka Solska" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: paSlogh (was: Re: Resources)
• Next by Date: Re: MOST terminology
• Prev by thread: Re: paSlogh (was: Re: Resources)
• Next by thread: Re: paSlogh (was: Re: Resources)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level