Re: qep'a' pa' qoch vInej

[WestphalWz@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/16/1999 3:22:46 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
lieven@handshake.de writes:

<< Now to Kingon again:
 {Hu'} is to me a noun, meaning "days ago"
 {vagh leS}, "five days-ago's"
 {wa'leS} was used so often in daily use, that it became one word.
 Like english: there is no single word for "five days ago", but there is one
 for "one day ago". >>

But, canon from TKD p. 82 indicates that {cha'Hu'} and {cha'leS} are one word
each, also.  What evidence do you have from canon that any number used with
the "nouns" {Hu'} and {leS} should not also be one word each?  I have seen the
number and these two "nouns" written separately only by users of this
listserv.

peHruS