tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 04 09:01:24 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: bIreqtal, was: family suffixes

• From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: bIreqtal, was: family suffixes
• Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 11:00:23 -0500 (CDT)
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

|> SuSvaj commented:
|> |HIja'. bong Heghbe'chugh' be' loDnal, loDnalDaj HoHwI' DoQlaH be'. 
|> 'ach HoHwI' naymeH bIreqtal ta'nIS be'.  tlhogh tay le' 'oH.
|> 
|> Not quite. The husband's death *cannot* be an accident 
|
|HIja'!  *bong Heghbe'chugh* 'e' vIghItlh.
|
|SuSvaj

bIlughbej.  DopDaq qul yIchenmoh qobDI' ghu'!  

Gotta pay more attention to all the words, even them little ones like
{-be'}, instead of fixating on {bong}. 

-- Voragh

• References:
  • Re: bIreqtal, was: family suffixes
    • From: "SuSvaj" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Soldiers of the Empire"
• Next by Date: Re: KLBC: Must
• Prev by thread: Re: bIreqtal, was: family suffixes
• Next by thread: NDN: bIreqtal, was: family suffixes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level