tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 07 11:54:23 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mu'qaDmey tIQ (was:Re: imperative + -jaj)

Lieven L. Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: mu'qaDmey tIQ (was:Re: imperative + -jaj)
• Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:53:34 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Organization: qepHom.de
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887

Am Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:04:33 -0500 hat Steven Boozer 
<[email protected]> geschrieben:

> batlh maHeghbej 'ej yo' qIjDaq vavpu'ma' DImuv.
> pa' reH maSuvtaHqu'.

Hm. I've always *heard* this as {yo' qIjDaq vavpu'ma' DImuvpa' reH 
maSuvtaHqu'}

I accept that this might be wrong, or not what MO intended, but the idea 
doesn't sound that wrong either to a Klingon, I think: "Before we join our 
fathers i.t.b.f. we keep on fighting."

cha' DeQHomwIj neH...

Quvar.

• References:
  • Re: mu'qaDmey tIQ (was:Re: imperative + -jaj)
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: mu'qaDmey tIQ (was:Re: imperative + -jaj)
• Next by Date: I/we with {-vIp}
• Previous by thread: Re: mu'qaDmey tIQ (was:Re: imperative + -jaj)
• Next by thread: Re: mu'qaDmey tIQ (was:Re: imperative + -jaj)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level