tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 26 18:38:59 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: double-checking
- From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: double-checking
- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:38:48 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=1lb1hKxzaAAvkLOhIxW+r9M3yDlMY5jdmqc7nHtZ/5PbiSRmyC0tHvY3g/Xryc2mcSy1aqZRO2HEB7ESRtNcWaBN5EMv4Scaa4534cWPDxRn7hGKCvtmDjVxZaAGIsANE90c4uvRlBqAEYiCGCFK6+NniFmN190GhO/ybx1ujnc= ;
- In-reply-to: <20060327020337.HDIY5353.ibm70aec.bellsouth.net@no1>
In other words, use -ta' if there was intetion, and -pu' if there wasn't, but use one of the 2, not both, nor exclude both.
DloraH <[email protected]> wrote: I would say to keep it on at least the second one. They were killed more
than 1000 years ago. But because we don't know exactly when, the -pu'
implies that at the point in time 1000 years ago, it had been done.
And from the story we know, -ta' could be used. -pu' CAN still be used
because -pu' does NOT say that there was NOT intent; it doesn't mention
intent either way; ie: it is unimportant to the conversation. But if you
want the intent mentioned and telling that this occured more than 1000 years
ago, -ta' would be good.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.