tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 10 22:55:45 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[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



Back to archive top level