tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 30 11:26:13 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause

...Paul ([email protected])

• From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. wrote:
> I agree that the last sentence is ambiguous by itself, but not in the
> context of the first sentence, which says "The phrase {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} 'a
> truce (in order) to confer' is the object of the verb {neH}...."  Doesn't
> get much plainer than that.

cha' d'oh!  :)

Double d'oh!  :)

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
                         "Magick happens."

• References:
  • RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
    • From: "d'Armond Speers, Ph.D." <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Next by Date: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Previous by thread: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Next by thread: RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level