tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 20:28:53 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {ja'chuq} (was Re: Qapbe' DujwIj)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: {ja'chuq} (was Re: Qapbe' DujwIj)
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:28:29 EST
In a message dated 3/30/1999 4:07:42 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< I did not address {lo'laH} because it is not relevant to the way
you were trying to use {ja'chuq}. Note the subject line of this
set of notes -- it says {ja'chuq}, not {ja'chuq} {lo'laH} je. I
didn't want to lose the focus: my explanation of why your earlier
use of {ja'chuq} was incorrect.
I am still trying not to lose the focus. Am I being clear? >>
===========
Huvchu'.
peHruS