tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 28 16:20:35 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ram chal wanI'

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: ram chal wanI'
• Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:08:46 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <97Feb28.090919est.77185@Lex_Lugar.cocci.com>

ghItlh DaQtIq:
>>>ram chalDaq puvwI' puS tu'lu'.
>>
>>This one confused me a bit. "puvwI'" is still a little too open-ended
>>for me. Lots of things fly.
>
>Agreed. I was writing this offline and i had forgotten ghunchu'wI''s
><raQpo'Duj> for airplane. If it pleases the council, i'll amend my
>previous post, replacing all <puvwI'>s with <raQpo'Duj>s.

If you indeed meant passenger-carrying airliners, then by all means make
the substitution.  However, I suspect that most late-night aircraft are
cargo ships.  The generic {muDDuj} might be appropriate; then again it
might be an unwarranted hindsight-word.

As I recall, "Vehicle Vocabulary" was one of the subjects on last year's
Wish List.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: ram chal wanI'
    • From: DaQtIq <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: ram chal wanI'
• Next by Date: Re: Hol vIlo' (was Re: Holna' wIlo'bejtaH)
• Prev by thread: Re: ram chal wanI'
• Next by thread: Re: ram chal wanI'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level