tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 17 13:50:25 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)

• From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
• Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 14:51:00 -0700

>>I completely agree in principal that rovers should be repeatable within
>>a word, though for this particular example, I would far prefer jIQuchnISqu'.
>>It just seems much more direct, and therefore less likely to start a knife
>>fight.

>You're right, though I said that I'd use {jIQuchbe'laHbe'} (and I would), I
>agree that {jIQuchnISqu'} is *much* more direct and cleaner.

I've lost track; what was the original English?

            --Krankor

• Follow-Ups:
  • Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
    • From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)

• Prev by Date: Re: toQDuj
• Next by Date: Re: Qu'vatlh Qu'vatlh Qu'vatlh!
• Prev by thread: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
• Next by thread: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level