tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 11 08:21:44 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIt
According to [email protected]:
>
> 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}.
Dajbej mIwlIj. vItIv. mIwvammo' jIQubtaH.
> peHruS
>
>
charghwI' 'utlh