tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 16 11:12:49 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIlegh'a'? (was: Re: "bang")
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: bIlegh'a'? (was: Re: "bang")
- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:12:17 -0500
In a message dated 95-12-15 00:07:01 EST, you write:
>>: qatlho'. jInej 'ach jISambe'pu'. DaH vIlegh.
>>
>>bIlegh'a'? nuq Dalegh? mu'tlhegh Dalegh'a'? targh Dalegh'a'? ;-)
>
>'oH'e' vIlegh. :-)
>lengwI' tlha'laHchu' lengwI' 'e' 'angbogh TKD nav loSmaH chorgh
>chovnatlh'e' vIlegh. DaH bIQuch'a'? (yItlheD, puq. chonuQ. :-)
>
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
RE: DaH vIlegh
Now I see it.
"It" is fully implied without adding {oH'e'} because of the usage of {vI-}
indicating an Object. Somehow, I think tlhInganpu' use as efficient as
possible sentences and leave off rhetorical ambiguity-removing excesses (to
them), such as {oH'e'}.
peHruS