tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 25 19:45:37 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: meqleH (again)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: meqleH (again)
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:44:47 -0800
At 19:24 00-01-25 -0500, David wrote:
}
}jatlh charghwI':
}>
}> I can't just sit here and let this kind of speculation go
}> unchallenged. This is absurd.
}
}bIlugh. tlhoy jIloy. It was a shot in the dark with no
}basis in canon, and I said as much.
}
}> You might as well consider
}> {meqleH} to be derived from {meq} and {leH} to say that it
}> is the device one uses to maintain reason.
}
}vaj... "meq"-"leH"-na' 'oH "Occam" tajHom'e'!
pe''egh David! majQa'.
Qov 'utlh