tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 09 00:11:12 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: bo'Degh

• From: Tad Stauffer <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: bo'Degh
• Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 00:01:24 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <a05100303b8616233718c@[10.0.1.4]>
• References: <[email protected]><[email protected]>

At 10:30 PM 1/8/02 -0500, ghunchu'wI' wrote:

>waqboch vIghovDI' jIjachqu'.

waqboch vIpoj 'e' vInIDqa'. ghIq vItlhoj, 'ej 'oy'choH nachwIj. (quSwIj 
vIngeQmo' :-P)


>wej qa'rol vIghov.

wej qa'rol, parbIng je vIghov je jIH. Dayajchugh, loQ HIchuHneS. ('a wej 
yI'angchu'qu'.)


>Saj 'oHchugh (ghaHchugh?) vIlInHoD, lugh wa' pong neH.

toH, tera' tIQDaq, HoDpu' volchaHDaq ngun vIlInHoDmey. ('ej motlh *villain* 
chaHba' HoDpu'vetlh'e')

- taD

• References:
  • bo'Degh
    • From: Qov <[email protected]>
  • Re: bo'Degh
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: bo'Degh
• Next by Date: Is this valid Klingon?
• Prev by thread: Re: bo'Degh
• Next by thread: Is this valid Klingon?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level