tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 23 21:08:13 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: QISmaS (was RE: RE: Samhain [Off Topic] (was:RE: qISmaS)[veering back on topic])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: QISmaS (was RE: RE: Samhain [Off Topic] (was:RE: qISmaS)[veering back on topic])
• Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 23:05:05 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <CBD6795F70A5D211B2B20008C733321AE0B8AD@INFINITI2>

ja' pagh:
>>> Sorchaj luneH neH. 'IHmoHlaw'meH,
>>> SorDaq 'aH law' lulan.
>>
>> <<lulan>>?
>
>This brings up an interesting question. Is <'aH> inherently plural, like its
>English translation. If so, then <lulan> is correct.

I disagree.  I think putting {law'} on it makes it grammatically plural,
whether or not it was inherently plural to begin with.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

• References:
  • QISmaS (was RE: RE: Samhain [Off Topic] (was:RE: qISmaS) [veering back on topic])
    • From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: KLBC: tlhIngan ghunwI'pu' <Klingon programmers>
• Next by Date: Re: Borg QubmeH Hol (was Re: *Egypt* Hol navmey)
• Prev by thread: Re: QISmaS (was RE: RE: Samhain [Off Topic] (was:RE: qISmaS) [veering back on topic])
• Next by thread: Re: Borg QubmeH Hol (was Re: *Egypt* Hol navmey)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level