tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 17 23:47:57 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: qogh vs. teS

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: qogh vs. teS
• Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 02:47:26 -0500 (EST)

In a message dated 97-02-10 11:39:28 EST, you write:

<< >qoghDu'wIj 'ochDaq DIrroptaSvam chaghmoH. >>

peHruS here again:  To translate "pour [into the ear] I am the one who
proposed {'elmoH}; so, I would definitely understand using {chaghmoH}.  But,
I would still have trouble with {chagh} alone.

peHruS

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: qogh vs. teS
    • From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: KLBC - language lab//immersion studies??
• Next by Date: Re: Hov veSmey KLBC
• Prev by thread: Re: qogh vs. teS
• Next by thread: Re: qogh vs. teS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level