tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 23 23:09:19 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: wot <tatlh>

• From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: wot <tatlh>
• Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 00:07:23 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-Reply-To: <a05111b15b96307954240@[151.25.221.31]>

> >qar mu'tlhegh wej, 'ach /chegh/ mu' qaq law' /tatlh'egh/ mu' qaq puS.
>
> reH qaq 'ay' wa' neH ghajbogh mu'?
> (is a word that has only on component always preferable?)

Not necessarily; but why say more than you need to.
In this case it is not simply being shorter, it is the definitions of the
words that make one more preferable.

Check the thread for Voragh's messages about the canon of the words.


DloraH, BG

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: wot <tatlh>
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
  • RE: wot <tatlh>
    • From: Stephan Schneider <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: wot <tatlh>
    • From: Stephan Schneider <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Original Worf Illustration from Wall Street Journal Article
• Next by Date: RE: KLBC: Paul Simon
• Prev by thread: RE: wot <tatlh>
• Next by thread: RE: wot <tatlh>
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level