tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 19 10:35:08 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: 'aH tIQ
At 12:27 PM 4/18/03 -0400, you wrote:
>I have no problem at all with your sentence. It is grammatical and it does
>mean what you say it does. But you have to admit, /wanI'vetlh/ COULD also
>refer to the act of looting,
"Looting" does not appear in my sentence. But since it was part of the
previous conversation, then yes I can see how you might have thought that.
SuSvaj
>which was the first thought that came to my
>mind, and it did make sense, so I didn't re-analyze the sentence.
>
>
>DloraH