tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 18 17:17:18 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nobHa' (was: tach Such)

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: nobHa' (was: tach Such)
• Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:04:27 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

ghItlh peHruS:
>As to {latlh}, I submit substituting {chuvbogh} for "that which is left
>over."

No, "thing which is left over" would be {chuvwI'}.
The controversial status of headless relative clauses isn't even an issue.

>We may come up with tera'nganvaD chuvbogh Huch nobHa'.

Yes, now that you've added a definite subject, {-bogh} makes sense.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: nobHa' (was: tach Such)
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: Success
• Next by Date: RE: KLBC:lopno'
• Prev by thread: Re: nobHa' (was: tach Such)
• Next by thread: Re: nobHa' (was: tach Such)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level