tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 04 13:31:37 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: muSHa'ghach / KLBC

• From: Pillow <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: muSHa'ghach / KLBC
• Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 12:32:06 -0800
• References: <[email protected]>

> jImIS.  *canon mu' oHtaH'a'  <parmaq>?     wot  DIp  joq  'oHtaH'a'?

                                                                    pIl'o'

>
> qa'ral again:
> : Good point. You have to wonder why the immortal *qonwI'* didn't use *parmaq*.
>
> 1) Because "love" can cover a wide range of meaning?  In context, {parmaq} may
> be closer to "lust", while *{muSHa'ghach} may tend toward "affection" (which
> BTW also has the fancy derived latinate suffix -tion, a nice analog to
> Klingon's {-ghach}).

• References:
  • Re: muSHa'ghach
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: weaponry
• Next by Date: KLIC: Dap bom chu'
• Prev by thread: Re: muSHa'ghach
• Next by thread: RE: answer about love
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level