tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 22 12:38:20 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: poH
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: poH
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:38:17 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromSaraH on Thu, 18 Jul 1996 15:07:05 -0700)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 15:07:05 -0700
>From: SaraH <[email protected]>
>>>poH wa'DIch vItu'be'. poH cha'DIch vIghuHmoH. poH wejDIch vIHoH.
>>>("The first/second/third time")
>>
>>
>jIyajbe'. poH Datu'be'? poH DaghuHmoH? poH DaHoH?! SoH qu'! chaq poH
>wa'DIch bIH Dtu'be'. poH cha'DIch negh DaghuHmoH. poH wejDIch jaghpu'
>DaHoH. poHvam DIpmey vIja'nIS. qar'a'? Dochvam neH vIjatlh.
>I don't understand. You didn't discover time? You made time be ready? You
>killed time?! You are fierce! Perhaps you didn't discover _them_ the first
>time. You made _soldiers_ ready the second time. You killed the _enemy_
>the third time. In this instance, you need to state the nouns. Is this
>right? I'm the only one who said anything.
I think the problem is that the nameless original poster was using "poH"
for "instance" ("time" in the sense of "the first time, the second
time..."), presumably for lack of anything better. I'm inclined to agree
that poH shouldn't be used this way, but we haven't yet gotten a better
word. Perhaps wanI', etc...
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMfPYo8ppGeTJXWZ9AQGnOgL/VshAD18FIQJpfvNg5fCAmurHLaD6/ZbO
IflVDC66UL+Nl9nqANmTCqS3iQEj8eXZ0/u6CKxe0c6VSDnOMfS0Ls2GhXEtMDx/
CL8lmrihjOa9QRenJnY2OVuwZkbq92iK
=rTLj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----