tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 13 21:37:57 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "bang"

• From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: "bang"
• Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 21:35:43 -0800 (PST)
• cc: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
• In-Reply-To: <v01520d01acf514d43079@[205.139.170.201]>

Wed, 13 Dec 1995, ghItlh ghunchu'wI':

> marqem:
> >I'd say <vIparHa'qu'>.

> But is {parHa'qu'} grammatical?  May we put one rover suffix
> immediately after another?  I don't like the way it looks.

We do have canon examples of a rover suffix following another:
nuQaw'qu'be' (p.48)
pIHoHvIpbe'qu' (p.49)

> -- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

yoDtargh

• References:
  • Re: "bang"
    • From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Colors? What colors?
• Next by Date: {-Daq} and "to be" (was Re: Klingon on IRC)
• Prev by thread: Re: "bang"
• Next by thread: Re: "bang"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level