tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 30 20:52:49 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC challenge
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC challenge
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:53:52 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
Good point. I think it might be even better stated as:
{vay' leghlaHbe'} rather than {pagh leghlaH} or even
{leghlaHbe'} alone. Perhaps {lojmIt neH leghlaH} would work or
{lojmIt SoQmo' Hur leghlaHbe'}.
charghwI' 'utlh
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:28:26 -0400 TPO <[email protected]> wrote:
> >lojmIt 'emDaq vay' leghlaHbe' SuvwI'.
> >
> >
> >SoQmo' lojmIt lojmIt 'emDaq pagh leghlaH SuvwI'.
>
>
> I may be reading into this too much, but...
>
> [...pagh leghlaH ...] doesn't fit right in my mind.
> "He is able to see <nothing, void, lack of something>"
> There is a window in the door, he can see that there is "nothing"; nobody is
> there.
>
> I prefer the [..leghlaHbe'..] in the first sentence; after all, because of
> the door he is "not able to see" who is there.
>
>
> DloraH