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

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Hoch

From: Alan Anderson <aranders@netusa1.net>
>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

Back to archive top level