tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 10 22:55:45 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIt
In a message dated 3/7/1999 3:24:59 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Are we always to come up with alternatives to {-Daq}? Does {-Daq} no
longer
sufficiently mean "to" as it does "at"? Is it now too ambiguous to use with
the "to" meaning that we'll be telling others to use something else? What's
the deal here? Are we redefining {-Daq} ourselves, has it been redefined
for us, or have we always been using it wrong? I guess I'm rather concerned
with the "Oh, yes, I knew that" attitude I'm seeing with some of the list
members. >>
==============
not MO ghItlhmeyDaq mu' {lurgh} vIlaDpu' 'ach lo' mIw vIchup.
{juH lurghDaq jIyIt}.
peHruS