tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 18 14:24:57 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: More Monopoly

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: KLBC: More Monopoly
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 13:21:34 UT

jatlh marqoS:

> cha' toQDujmey lutu'lu' 'e' vIHar.

This might possibly be {cha' toQDujmey tu'lu'}.  Not proven.

> <ST III>Daq toQDuj mach'e' wIleghbogh
> lutlhej wa'maH cha' beq, 'ach  <ST:TNG>Daq toQDuj tIn wIlegh.  <TNG> toQDuj
> tIn law' <ST III> tIn puS 'e' wISov

You've got to add the word {toQDuj} in there again.

<TNG> toQDuj tIn law' <ST3> toQDuj tIn puS

> 'enterpray'-<D> tlhej 'e' wIleghpu'mo'.

You've just put a Type 7 verbal suffix on the second verb of a Sentence As 
Object construction.  You must remove it.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97463.5

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: KLBC: More Monopoly
    • From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
  • Re: KLBC: More Monopoly
    • From: Bill Willmerdinger <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re : RE: KLBC: nominal sentences
• Next by Date: History of the Letters
• Prev by thread: RE: KLBC: More Monopoly
• Next by thread: RE: KLBC: More Monopoly
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level