tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 17 06:39:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jItlhob Hoch
- From: "Donald E. Vick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jItlhob Hoch
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 06:34:07 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "William H. Martin" at Dec 16, 96 07:12:25 pm
>
> On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:34:12 -0800 "eric d. zay"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> ..
> > > The -rQ- or -rq- combination is not legitimate, is it?
> > > I would guess Sark to transliterate as {SarIq}
>
> or {Sargh}
Somehow I doubt this. Every time I listen to the tapes, I'm surprised at
how soft the {gh} sound is. I'm pretty sure it doesn't sound like a {q}.
Not to me ennyhoo.
> charghwI'
<g> maQochqa'.
taDI'oS vIq, law'wI'pu'vaD Holtej jIH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thaddaeus Vick, Linguist to the Masses | [email protected] -or- |
| | [email protected] |
| gules on a saltire argent voided azure | |
| thirteen mullets of the second. Yeeha. | http://www.crl.com/~dvick |
----------------------------------------------------------------------