tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 12 19:54:45 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hoch

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Hoch
• Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:08:18 -0500

From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>And we haven't actually gotten an official
>description of why {nIn Hoch} and {vatlh DISpoH cha'maH wej HochHom} are
>the way they are.  But it makes sense, and SuStel is very good at arguing
>that that's the way it *should* be. :-)

Especially since seeing {nIn Hoch} is what made me decide that it's likely!

Hmm . . . I don't think anyone would agree with {nIn naQ}, would they?  Is
this something to do with {nIn}'s non-quantifiedness, or with {naQ}'s
meaning?

SuStel
Stardate 99118.4

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Hoch
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Postal Course
• Next by Date: Re: gauntlets (was: another new-to-the-list person's question)
• Prev by thread: Re: Hoch
• Next by thread: Re: Hoch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level