tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 08 15:44:32 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 1014
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 1014
- Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:43:10 EST
In a message dated 1/14/99 1:25:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> Subj: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 1014
> Date: 1/14/99 1:25:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: [email protected]
> Sender: [email protected]
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>
> To: [email protected] (Multiple recipients of list)
>
> TLHINGAN-HOL Digest 1014
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Re: Ordering food
> by "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
> 2) RE: chay' Dochmey vIjatlh?
> by "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
> 3) RE: Ordering food
> by "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
> 4) RE: chay' Dochmey vIjatlh?
> by "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
> 5) Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
> by [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
> 6) Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
> by [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
> 7) RE: Ordering food
> by TPO <[email protected]>
> 8) Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> by [email protected]
> 9) Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> by [email protected]
> 10) Re: Ordering food
> by [email protected]
> 11) Re: Ordering food
> by [email protected]
> 12) Re: Ordering food
> by "K'ryntes" <[email protected]>
> 13) Re: chay' Dochmey vIjatlh?
> by Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> 14) Re: qepHomHey
> by Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> 15) Re: pIvlaw' tIqwIj
> by Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> 16) Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> by Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> 17) Re: ghIQta' ghunchu'wI'
> by Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> 18) Re: qa'vIn
> by Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> 19) Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> by Terry Donnelly <[email protected]>
> 20) Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> by Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> 21) HolQeD
> by Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> 22) Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> by "K'ryntes" <[email protected]>
> 23) Re: HolQeD
> by "K'ryntes" <[email protected]>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:07:58 PST
> From: "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Ordering food
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> I would just say "He makes the house white." as
> juH chISmoH (ghaH). When I use a phrase like (object) (verb)+moH
> (subject) I usually translate it as "(subject) causes (object) to
> (verb)", in this case "He causes house to be white."
>
> If I wish to translate "(Subject) causes (object) to (verb) (other
> object)," like in "The officer caused the guard to hit the captain.", I
> do it like "(other object) with no t5 suffix (object) (verb)+moH
> (subject)", so my above sentence would be "HoD 'avwI' qIpmoH yaS" (In
> TKD it says if there are other nouns in a sentence they go before the
> direct object.)
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:16:58 PST
> From: "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: chay' Dochmey vIjatlh?
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
> >Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:38:31 -0800 (PST)
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
> >To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> >Subject: RE: chay' Dochmey vIjatlh?
> >
> >lab K'ryntes:
> >
> >> Andeen, Eric wrote:
> >
> >>> lab K'ryntes:
> >>>
> >>> > chay' <more> vIjatlhlaH?
> >>> > *lutmey <more> vIqonnIS* vIjatlh vIneH.
> >>>
> >>> The word <latlh> is just what you want. <latlh> is one of those
> words
> >like
> >>> <Hoch> that gets treated a little differently in the N-N
> construction -
> >it
> >>> goes in front of the other noun. "More stories" or "other stories"
> would
> >be
> >>> <latlh lutmey>.
> >
> >> So <latlh lut> would mean an additional story?
> >
> >HIja'
> >
> >> Does <latlh> mean "others" too? As in <latlhvaD jIvum.>.
> >> I've seen it used that way. That would be, "I work for others."
> >
> >All by itself, <latlh> is "other, another". If the noun is obvious, as
> in
> >your example, it makes perfect sense to drop the noun and just use
> <latlh>.
> >
> >
> >pagh
> >Beginners' Grammarian
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Would I use latlh if I wanted to say, like "Give me another phaser," in
> the sense of "Give me a different phaser" (perhaps the one I have
> doesn't work, and I need a different one.) or would I use pIm?
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:34:05 -0700
> From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Ordering food
> Message-ID: <CBD6795F70A5D211B2B20008C733321A031C6C@INFINITI2>
>
> lab Patrick Masterson:
>
> > I would just say "He makes the house white." as
> > juH chISmoH (ghaH). When I use a phrase like (object) (verb)+moH
> > (subject) I usually translate it as "(subject) causes (object) to
> > (verb)", in this case "He causes house to be white."
>
> maj.
>
> > If I wish to translate "(Subject) causes (object) to (verb) (other
> > object)," like in "The officer caused the guard to hit the captain.", I
> > do it like "(other object) with no t5 suffix (object) (verb)+moH
> > subject)", so my above sentence would be "HoD 'avwI' qIpmoH yaS" (In
> > TKD it says if there are other nouns in a sentence they go before the
> > direct object.)
>
> This does not work. To start with, I am really unsure who is hitting whom.
I
> know the officer is causing the hitting, but I really don't know who is
> doing the hitting and who is getting hit. Extra nouns are indeed placed
> before the object, but they need to be marked as such with a type 5 suffix.
> TKD also says "... nouns which indicate something special other than
subject
> or object must have some special indication of what their function is.
> Unlike English, this is accomplished by using suffixes."
>
> The way we indicate indirect objects, especially in cases involving <-moH>,
> is with the suffix <-vaD>:
>
> HoDvaD 'avwI' qIpmoH yaS - The officer caused the captain to hit the guard.
>
>
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:35:47 -0700
> From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: chay' Dochmey vIjatlh?
> Message-ID: <CBD6795F70A5D211B2B20008C733321A031C6D@INFINITI2>
>
> lab Patrick Masterson:
>
> > Would I use latlh if I wanted to say, like "Give me another
> > phaser," in the sense of "Give me a different phaser" (perhaps
> > the one I have doesn't work, and I need a different one.) or
> > would I use pIm?
>
> latlh pu' HInob. - Give me another phaser
> pu' pIm HInob. - Give me a different phaser
>
> Pretty much the same thing. Decide which one you prefer.
>
>
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:31:41 +0100
> From: [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> ja' HomDoq:
>
> > ja' HovqIj:
> > > displays.(?) Es zeigt.(?) I can see your point, that it is just
> > > unimportant in the first place _what_ is displayed. It doesn't seem to
> > > be wrong, just strange. (By now everybody should have found out my real
> > > name: HovHuj...)
> > >
> > yeah, I was all up in arms against "He gives." (Er gibt.)
> > We didn't have {Dab} back then, but "He dwells." (Er wohnt.)
> > is really my favorite for displaying (no pun intended) the
> > strange feeling I get with these.
>
> When would I use <Dab> without an object? If I understand this
> correctly, these forms are only used to describe an action generally,
> when no further information is needed. Like <jISop>: it's not
> interesting what I eat, only the fact that I eat is important. I really
> can't think of a situation where <Dab> could be used like this. I mean,
> dwelling is not something I do at one moment, and the place where one
> dwells usually does matter when people are talking about this kind of
> thing. <cha'bogh nav> seems strange, but at least I can find some
> legitimation for it. <Dab> without an object however doesn't make sense
> to me. Maybe there are a few rare cases when it could be used, but I
> can't think of one at the moment.
>
> >
> >
> > > Uh-oh... something interesting is taking form in my mind:
> > > ghawran cha'bogh navmey Daleghpu''a'?
> > > Have you seen...
> > > ...the pictures that show Gowron?
> > > ...Gowron's pictures?
> >
> > I think this looks perfectly fine...
>
> Interesting and confusing. Might be useful for poetry.
>
>
> HovqIj
>
> >
> >
> > Marc Ruehlaender
> > aka HomDoq
> > [email protected]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:40:50 +0100
> From: [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> ja' jey'el:
>
> > ghunchu'wI'vaD jangtaHvIS HovqIj, jatlh:
> >
> > > > -- any transitive verb
> > > > can be used with an unstated object, like {Sop} or {laD}. The
bottom
> > > > of TKD page 33 talks about this sort of usage.
> > >
> > > I've heard "He's eating" or "I'm reading" and similar sentences, but
I'
> ve
> > > never heard "It's displaying". Maybe it's just because my ears aren't
> used
> > > to it, but it still sounds strange.
> > >
> > lo'vetlh rur jonwI' lo'. QapHa'chugh HaSta, wa' jonwI'vaD jatlhlaH latlh
> > jonwI':
> > QaQ De' luje'bogh tlheghmey Dotlh. 'eltaH De' law'.
> > 'ach cha'taHbe'qu' janvam 'Igh!!
> >
> > Engineers talk like that. If the visual display is malfunctioning, one
> > engineer may say to another: The data feed lines are in good condition.
> > Plenty of data is getting in. But this accursed device isn't displaying
> at
> > all !!
>
>
>
> Daj. <_vay'_ cha'be'taH> <pagh cha'taH> ghap jatlh nuv 'e' vIpIH.
> not pagh DaghojlaH. or, of course: reH bIghojlaH... ;) (I have no
> problem with this one, but I like the sound of the double negative
> better)
>
>
> HovqIj
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --jey'el
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:32:29 -0500
> From: TPO <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Ordering food
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> >> If I wish to translate "(Subject) causes (object) to (verb) (other
> >> object)," like in "The officer caused the guard to hit the captain.", I
> >> do it like "(other object) with no t5 suffix (object) (verb)+moH
> >> subject)", so my above sentence would be "HoD 'avwI' qIpmoH yaS" (In
> >> TKD it says if there are other nouns in a sentence they go before the
> >> direct object.)
> >
> >...
> >The way we indicate indirect objects, especially in cases involving
<-moH>,
> >is with the suffix <-vaD>:
> >
> >HoDvaD 'avwI' qIpmoH yaS - The officer caused the captain to hit the
guard.
>
>
> I kind of remember reading about this but I can't remember where.
>
> Where does this usage (determining who hit whom) come from? (so I can
> RE-read it)
>
>
> DloraH
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:41:20 EST
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> In a message dated 1/12/1999 11:56:36 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << Finally, a question. Did you record a list of "your words," or is this
> "your
> > list" of words?
>
> My word list. Does it matter which noun the -wIj goes on? >>
>
> It matters. The answer lies in my question of whether it is your list of
> someone's words, perhaps from TKD, etc., giving mu'mey tetlhwIj or it is a
> list of YOUR words, ones you have created, devised, etc., giving mu'meywIj
> tetlh.
>
> peHruS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:45:14 EST
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> In a message dated 1/12/1999 12:17:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << Do you mean {paq chu' wIHevbogh poH vISovbe'},
>
> This is probably close. I was trying to say, "I don't know when we will
> receive
> the new book."
>
> How 'bout this....
>
> paq chu' wIHevDI' vISovbe'. if I just drop the 'e'?
> >>
>
> I'm not the BG, just a tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI' of six years already. But,
no.
> Merely dropping the {'e'} won't work. Reason: Your sentence means "As
soon
> as we receive a new book, I will not know [something]."
>
> paq chu' wIHevbogh poH vISovbe' means "I do not know the time which we will
> receive a new book."
>
> peHruS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:56:34 EST
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Ordering food
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> In a message dated 1/13/1999 2:50:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << HoDvaD 'avwI' qIpmoH yaS - The officer caused the captain to hit the
> guard.
> >>
>
> Dunqu', pagh
>
> I find this to be an excellent use of {-vaD}.
>
> peHruS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:53:20 EST
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Ordering food
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> In a message dated 1/13/1999 2:10:50 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> <<
> If I wish to translate "(Subject) causes (object) to (verb) (other
> object)," like in "The officer caused the guard to hit the captain.", I
> do it like "(other object) with no t5 suffix (object) (verb)+moH
> (subject)", so my above sentence would be "HoD 'avwI' qIpmoH yaS" (In
> TKD it says if there are other nouns in a sentence they go before the
> direct object.) >>
>
> How do I know that this does not mean "The officer caused the captain's
> guard
> to hit.....?"
>
> peHruS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:54:35 -0500
> From: "K'ryntes" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Ordering food
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 1/13/1999 2:50:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> > [email protected] writes:
> >
> > << HoDvaD 'avwI' qIpmoH yaS - The officer caused the captain to hit the
> guard.
> > >>
> >
> > Dunqu', pagh
> >
> > I find this to be an excellent use of {-vaD}.
> >
> > peHruS
>
> jImISqu'.
>
> K'ryntes
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:18:45 -0500
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: chay' Dochmey vIjatlh?
> Message-ID: <l03020900b2c30edfed2d@[206.150.216.97]>
>
> ja' K'ryntes:
> >chay' <more> vIjatlhlaH?
>
> pab Sar poQ ghu' Sar. rut yap <latlh>. rut 'ut <pIm>. wa'logh
> "I need to drink more coffee" mughlu'meH, <qa'vIn vItlhutlhnISqa'>
> vIchup.
>
> >*lutmey <more> vIqonnIS* vIjatlh vIneH.
>
> bIjatlhlaH <latlh lutmey vIqonnIS>.
> <lutmey chu' vIqonnIS> vIparHa' jIH.
>
> >chay' <again> vIjatlhlaH?
>
> rut Qapbe' wot mojaq <-qa'>, 'ach motlh pup.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:54:35 -0500
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: qepHomHey
> Message-ID: <l03020901b2c312ccd93c@[206.150.216.97]>
>
> mujang peHruS:
> ><< jImIS. bIjeSlaH 'e' nISbogh paQDI'norgh DabuSHa'rupchoH'a'? >>
> >
> >jIjang 'e' qotlhbe' jabbI'IDlIj
>
> bIjangbe'chugh, jImISbe'choHlaHbe'.
> jImIStaH 'e' DamaS'a'?
>
> >chaq Saturday qepHom lumuvqang vay'
> >lalDanmo' vImuvqangbe'
>
> maj. ngoDHeyvetlh vIyajpu'.
>
> >vaj jaj pIm vIchuppu' neH
> >'ach bIbeplaw' 'e' vItu'
>
> jIbepta'be'qu' jay'! cha'logh chopum, 'ej cha'logh bImujbej.
> jIghel neH <qatlh De'wI' qepHom Dacherbe' SoH?>
>
> peHruS, yIqIm! jabbI'IDlIj ngo' vIlaDqa':
>
> |>latlh qepHommey DIpoQnISbe' 'e' vIHar
> |>wa' qepHomvam wIlo'laH
> |>vaj jIjeSqang
>
> yap wa' qepHomHey 'e' DaHarlaw'.
> bIjeSqang 'e' Damaqbej.
> vaj jImIS. Saturday qepHom che' Lisa Stapp.
> latlh De'wI' qepHom tu'lu'be'.
> qepHomHeyDaj Damuvqanglaw', qar'a'?
> jIghel neH. wej vImISbe'.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:02:35 -0500
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: pIvlaw' tIqwIj
> Message-ID: <l03020902b2c31b3ad45f@[206.150.216.97]>
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >tI'laHbe' Qel. jIloSnIS neH.
>
> maj. chaq ghorbe'lu', 'ach 'oy'mo' Daghongbe' vaj rach'eghlaH.
>
> >loQ 'oy'qu' neH. {{:)>
>
> Dajqu' mu'meyvam tay'.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:18:46 -0500
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> Message-ID: <l03020904b2c32019f94e@[206.150.216.97]>
>
> ja'pu' netlh:
> > Quchchu' *K'ryntes*
> > Hoch mu'tlhegh lutlha' monwI'mey :)
>
> ja' K'ryntes:
> >LOL! HIja', tlhIngan Quch jIH. :D
>
> ja' tlhIngan tIgh nav wa'vatlh javmaH Soch:
> >pIj monchugh vay' yIvoqQo'.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:10:44 -0500
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: ghIQta' ghunchu'wI'
> Message-ID: <l03020903b2c31de8756d@[206.150.216.97]>
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >boSIQta''a'? bIDo'chu'! batlh maHegh Hoch!
>
> tlhaQ lutlIj jen, 'ach teHchu' lutwIj. mataHta'. ta'maj yIvaqQo'.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:25:54 -0500
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: qa'vIn
> Message-ID: <l03020905b2c320ba1f13@[206.150.216.97]>
>
> ja'pu' charghwI':
> > He'So' mu'tlheghvam je.
>
> ja' K'ryntes
> ><He'So' je mu'tlheghvam> DajatlhnIS 'e' vIHar.
>
> lugh K'ryntes. (rut lughbe' charghwI' net tu'.)
> Whether you're applying the "also" to the subject or the object of
> the sentence, the {je} comes after the verb.
>
> TKD page 55:
> | The noun conjunction {je} has an additional function: when it follows
> | a verb, it means /also, too/.
> |
> | {qaleghpu' je} /I also saw you, I saw you too/
> |
> | As in English, the meaning of such sentences is ambiguous: /I and
> | others saw you/ or /I saw you and others/. The exact meaning is
> | determined by context.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 02:20:35 -0600
> From: Terry Donnelly <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 1/12/1999 12:17:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> > [email protected] writes:
>
> > I was trying to say, "I don't know when we will
> > receive
> > the new book."
> >
> > How 'bout this....
> >
> > paq chu' wIHevDI' vISovbe'. if I just drop the 'e'?
> > >>
> >
>
> I think you are confused by the definition of /-DI'/. It means 'when'
> only
> in the sense of 'as soon as': /paq chu' vIHevDI', jIQuchmoH/ 'As soon
> as/when
> I receive the new book, I will become happy.'
>
>
> > I'm not the BG, just a tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI' of six years already. But,
> no.
> > Merely dropping the {'e'} won't work. Reason: Your sentence means "As
> soon
> > as we receive a new book, I will not know [something]."
> >
> > paq chu' wIHevbogh poH vISovbe' means "I do not know the time which we
> will
> > receive a new book."
> >
>
> Actually, this doesn't work, either. As charghwI' (I believe) pointed
> out, this
> means 'I do not know the time of the new book which we receive.'
> Unfortunately,
> the correct translation is unknown to us at present because the original
> English sentence is an example of a relative adverb, which we just don't
> know how
> to say yet. In the sentence "I know _when_ the book is coming", we have
> never yet
> found a way to express that 'when'. It is _not_ the same as the word
> /ghorgh/,
> which means only 'when?' as a question. We have the same problem with
> words like
> 'where' and 'how' (as in "I know how you did it"). You can get around
> the problem
> by re-casting (eg. /vay' Data'. mIwlIj vISov/), but we don't know any
> Klingon
> equivalents to the relative adverb at this time.
>
>
>
> -- ter'eS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:28:32 -0600
> From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> At 12:26 AM 1/14/99 -0800, I wrote:
>
> >> How 'bout this....
> >>
> >> paq chu' wIHevDI' vISovbe'. if I just drop the 'e'?
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think you are confused by the definition of /-DI'/. It means 'when'
> >only
> >in the sense of 'as soon as': /paq chu' vIHevDI', jIQuchmoH/ 'As soon
>
> Oops. should be just /paq chu' vIHevDI', jIQuch/
>
> -- ter'eS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:28:34 -0600
> From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: HolQeD
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> I received my latest issue of HolQeD over a week ago. Has anyone else
> received theirs? If so, the list has been strangely silent about it.
>
> I'd like to comment on the excellent interview with Marc Okrand. It
> was great: it gave us some new information that confirmed some of
> my own opinions and that didn't contradict any of my cherished
> beliefs. What more could you ask for!
>
> charghwI', yu'meH mIwlIjmo' qavanbej!
>
> -- ter'eS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:44:04 -0500
> From: "K'ryntes" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> Alan Anderson wrote:
>
> > ja'pu' netlh:
> > > Quchchu' *K'ryntes*
> > > Hoch mu'tlhegh lutlha' monwI'mey :)
> >
> > ja' K'ryntes:
> > >LOL! HIja', tlhIngan Quch jIH. :D
> >
> > ja' tlhIngan tIgh nav wa'vatlh javmaH Soch:
> > >pIj monchugh vay' yIvoqQo'.
> >
> > -- ghunchu'wI'
>
> >:I 'e' Dalegh DaneH'a'?
>
> ghobe'!
>
> :oD 'e' Dalegh DaneH!
>
> pIj bImon je! :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
>
> K'ryntes
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:07:53 -0500
> From: "K'ryntes" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: HolQeD
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>
> > I received my latest issue of HolQeD over a week ago. Has anyone else
> > received theirs? If so, the list has been strangely silent about it.
>
> HIja'! I also received mine about that time. It is definately an
> excellent issue. The cover art was beautiful, charghwI's interview was
> great and I always enjoy the editorials.
>
> K'ryntes
>
> >
> >
> > I'd like to comment on the excellent interview with Marc Okrand. It
> > was great: it gave us some new information that confirmed some of
> > my own opinions and that didn't contradict any of my cherished
> > beliefs. What more could you ask for!
> >
> > charghwI', yu'meH mIwlIjmo' qavanbej!
> >
> > -- ter'eS
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TLHINGAN-HOL Digest 1014
> *******************************
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <[email protected]>
> Received: from rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (rly-zb02.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.2])
by
> air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v56.22) with SMTP; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:25:13 -0500
> Received: from kli.org (kli.org [205.186.156.5])
> by rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
> with ESMTP id NAA28685 for <[email protected]>;
> Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:24:59 -0500 (EST)
> From: [email protected]
> Received: from emlee (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by kli.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA17603
> for <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:24:42 -0800 (PST)
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:24:42 -0800 (PST)
> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> Errors-To: [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Originator: [email protected]
> Sender: [email protected]
> Precedence: bulk
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 1014
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: TO UNSUBSCRIBE: email "unsub tlhingan-hol" to [email protected]
>
>