tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 08 21:35:16 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: lu- (KLBC)

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: lu- (KLBC)
• Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:03:08 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

ja' charghwI':
>> TKW p.29: "SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'".
>>
>> We also have "quvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj" from CK (or maybe PK)...
>
>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.

I would actually interpret this the other way around, if I thought it was
worth making the distinction.  I see {tu'be'} as "not notice" or "miss".
May the tribbles be overlooked, whether or not they are there.  But old
warriors are simply not found.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: lu- (KLBC)
    • From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: HOLES Redux
• Next by Date: Re: tlhoghtay
• Prev by thread: Re: lu- (KLBC)
• Next by thread: Re: lu- (KLBC)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level