tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 23 01:57:20 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: lommey (story, part 9)

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: lommey (story, part 9)
• Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 04:56:50 -0500

In a message dated 96-12-22 20:58:39 EST, the author of "lommey" writes:

<< > SuStel, reH maQochbe'laH.  tlhIngan tighmey DIHaDnIStaH. >>

Although you got {lommey} right, as opposed to the incorrect {lomDu'},
because the corpse is no longer a sentient being, I question the use of
{tIghmey}.  Shouldn't that be an inherent plural?  Therefore, I suggest
{tIgh} as sufficient.

peHruS

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: lommey (story, part 9)
    • From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Excalibur" vImugh
• Next by Date: RE: Carl SaganvaD gha'tlhIq
• Prev by thread: Re: lommey (story, part 9)
• Next by thread: Re: lommey (story, part 9)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level