tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 11 22:14:30 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'

Bryan Jones ([email protected])

From: Bryan Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:47:38 +1000
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

> > Personally, I am rather fond of {tu'lu'be'}. It gives the feeling that
> > the item or situation it refers to may exist, while no-one has seen it
> > so it is a hypothetical being discussed.
> >
> > neH cha' DeQmeywIj
> >
> > Se'noj
> >
> 
> As opposed to >tu'be'lu'<?

{tu'be'lu'} gives me more of a feeling that the un-named entity does
not find anything, rather than a lack of such entities.

> lay'tel SIvten


-- 
Bryan S. Jones
NightDaemon Enterprises
nightdaemon.co.nr
[email protected]

Follow-Ups:
- Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
  - From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
  - From: [email protected]

Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: qa'vIn (n)
Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: pIch (v)
Previous by thread: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
Next by thread: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
Index(es):