tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 12 22:02:54 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: limerick attempt: cha' be'nI'pu' / KLBC

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: limerick attempt: cha' be'nI'pu' / KLBC
• Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:19:06 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

ja'pu' De'vID:
>cha' be'nI'pu'
>==============
>
>veng wa'DIch Dab cha' be'nI'pu',
>reH chaH leghDI' vay', jatlh: 'IHqu'!
>jagh HoHmeH SuvwI''a'
>betleHDaj lo'nISba',
>'ach loD HoH be'nI'pu' mInDu'.

ja' peHruS:
>lI'mer'IQvam vItIvchu'.  majQa'!  mu'tlhegh QavDaq mu' {HoH} yItam!  mu'
>{luHoH} yIlo'.  ghIq pup lI'mer'IQlIj pabDaj je.  qaDmey DIHev 'e'
>vItul.

The grammar of the last line seems fine to me -- it implies that the
"killed" men are plural, which is quite appropriate.  It's the *first*
line that requires the {lu-} prefix, unless somehow the sisters manage
to reside in more than one "First City".

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

• References:
  • limerick attempt: cha' be'nI'pu' / KLBC
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: limerick attempt: cha' be'nI'pu' / KLBC
    • From: Daniel W Morse <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: 'Iv jIH (KLBC)
• Next by Date: Re: 'Iv jIH (KLBC)
• Prev by thread: Re: limerick attempt: cha' be'nI'pu' / KLBC
• Next by thread: RE: limerick attempt: cha' be'nI'pu' / KLBC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level