tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 07 22:03:10 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: lu- (KLBC)

• From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: lu- (KLBC)
• Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 01:02:09 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
• Priority: NORMAL

On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:50:22 -0800 (PST) "Andeen, Eric" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ghItlh ~mark:
> > I seem to recall canon for this, a use of "tu'lu'be'."  There it is.
> TKW p.29: "SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'".
> 
> We also have "quvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj" from CK (or maybe PK), so
> Okrand has gone both ways with -be' on tu'lu'. Huj.
> 
> pagh

Perhaps there is a message here we have missed. May one not 
discover tribbles in your coordinates (that should be 
{QuvlIjDaq}) implies that the tribbles should not be there. No 
one finds old warriors perhaps suggests that they may exist, but 
only if they are crafty enough to not be discovered.

charghwI'

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: lu- (KLBC)
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: understanding {-moH}
• Next by Date: Re: Question as object
• Prev by thread: Re: lu- (KLBC)
• Next by thread: Re: lu- (KLBC)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level