tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 20 21:34:44 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: New Klingon Primer

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: New Klingon Primer
• Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:34:07 -0500

In a message dated 95-11-15 00:34:03 EST, you write:

><ngeb> ghItlh 'e' Hechbe'ba' peHruS.  lughba' <ngeD>.
>mu'tlhegh ngeb vIqImHa' 'ach nom mu'tlhegh ngeD vIlaDlaH.
>
>peHruS: > Huch vIvI' 'e' vIchaw'lu'
>
>mISqu' mu'tlheghvam.  lughlaHbe' {...'e' vIchaw'lu'}.

Salugh
{ngeD} vighItlh 'e' vIHech

{'e' vIchaw'lu'} is questioned.  Do you say it is wrong because a verb + lu'
must not take an object, and {'e'} is considered an object?

Perhaps {Huch vIvI' vIneH    chaw''a'} as two sentences is better.

peHruS

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: New Klingon Primer
    • From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Confusion and unconditional surrender (was: vocabulary..)
• Next by Date: Re: DujHom chu' vIje'nIS
• Prev by thread: Re: New Klingon Primer
• Next by thread: Re: New Klingon Primer
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level