tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 02 17:25:40 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nuq vIjatlh DaneH
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nuq vIjatlh DaneH
- Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 10:24:55 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:
>Especially if you turn it around and use the answer as a model. Then there
>simply is no question to confuse the issue. {<tlhaQ ghu'vam> Dajatlh
>vIneH.} I agree with ghunchu'wI'. Okrand's statement about QAO was about
>a completely different type of sentence. Replacing <tlhaQ ghu'vam> with
><nuq> makes perfect sense, and remains a question, asking for an answer.
DaH ghunchu'wI' nger vIyaj.
'ach jIHvaD qay'taH; tlhob'a' mu'tlheghvam? taQ {nuq vIjatlh DaneH};
vIyajlaHchu'be' jIH. "What do I say? You want that." taQlaw'.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail