tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 25 09:22:26 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: De'wI'wIj vIngu'; pagh vIngu''a'? (Re: Skype

Lieven L. Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: De'wI'wIj vIngu'; pagh vIngu''a'? (Re: Skype
• Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:22:50 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Organization: qepHom.de
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887

Am Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:33:03 EDT hat <[email protected]> 
geschrieben:

>> But a computer is a "thing", not a "being", that's right. Canon is very 
>> clear on that.
>>
>> Quvar.
>>
>
> Hoch De'wI'mey'a'?  reH'a'?  Dat'a'?  (pabbe' 'e' vISov.)

canon example of this mistake: {'entepray''a'?}
  "The Enterprise?"

  (I think ST5)

'ej bIlughlaw'. Data wIqelchu'chugh vaj Doch 'oH, 'ach ngoDvam Sovqu'mo' 
chaq Dep ghaH.

'ach not De'wI'PU' ghomlu' 'e' vIHar. chaq tughHa' valchoH 'ej jatlhchoH 
De'wI'MEY, 'ach tlhInganPU'vaD DochMEY bIHtaH.

Quvar.

• References:
  • Re: De'wI'wIj vIngu'; pagh vIngu''a'? (Re: Skype
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: RE: Klingons For Kerry
• Next by Date: Re: lut tlhegh
• Previous by thread: Re: De'wI'wIj vIngu'; pagh vIngu''a'? (Re: Skype
• Next by thread: KLBC: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level