tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 25 13:32:28 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
• Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:26:22 EST

I have wej things to say.

wa'DIch :

In a message dated 2/25/1999 1:19:38 GMT Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< ja' charghwI":
 >[...]
 >Qugh: parmaq.
 
 Qugh 'oH parmaq'e' 'e' DaHarlaw'. :-P
 
 va, Do'Ha' Qugh mojlaHbej.  Do' QI'tu' rurlaH je.
 QI'tu' vImaSmo', parmaqqaywI' vIvuvqang 'ej parmaqwIj vItoy'rup.
 
 -- ghunchu'wI' >>

Many apologise, but i can't seem to translate this properly, could I have some
help, pagh, errr, anyone ?  I have sort of stopped reading things and have
been writting to much

cha'DIch :

charghwI' 'utlh, thank you, ghIj qet jaghmeyjaj
I really appreciated the translation

wejDIcj :

There is no third point.  Sorry.

qupla'

Nic 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
    • From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
  • Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: qama'
• Next by Date: Re: Placement of aspect suffixes
• Prev by thread: Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level