tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:25:20 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:27:14 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:33:11 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' charghwI':
> >> Sub qutna'. ngI'be' qutHom.)
> >
> >ngI'be''a'? Huj. chaq pagh ngI'.
>
> tISchu'qu'chugh, chaq pagh ngI'.
> 'ugh pagh tIS 'e' vIjuvlaHbe'chugh, ngI'be' 'e' vIQub.
qarbe'ba'. vay' ngI' Hoch. DajuvlaHbe'chugh vaj DajuvlaHbe' neH.
ponglIj vISovchugh pagh vISovbe'chugh vaj pong DaghajtaH.
ponglIj nIHbe' Sovbe'ghachwIj. vay'vaD vay' ngI'be'choHmoHlaHbe'
juvlaHbe'ghachlIj.
Sorry. Once I got going on that, I couldn't stop myself. I think
it is ugly, but perfectly meaningful.
> >> pa'na' 'oHbe'mo' DujwIj vergh'e', Duj Som vIHuvmoHnIS.
> >
> >nuq 'oH <<vergh>>?
>
> TKD p112: "dock".
qarchu'. qatlh vItu'ta'be'?
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'