tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 09 22:23:22 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tuQ(Ha')moH
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tuQ(Ha')moH
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:23:07 +1000
- Bcc:
ja'pu' Voragh:
>Unfortunately {qogh tuQmoHHa'} and {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'} are both from
>HolQeD 2.4 and are our only examples of {tuQHa'moH} (the citation form in
>the TKD glossary IIRC), so we have no way of knowing whether the variant
>{tuQmoHHa'} is the usual form, a common variant, or unique to this one
>slang expression.
Yes, that's it. I wasn't trying to say that lay'SIv was wrong; merely
playing Fek'lhr's advocate and offering another possible explanation,
particularly since no other instances of {tuQHa'moH} (or {tuQmoHHa'}, for
that matter) are found in canon.
Savan,
QeS la'
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Dating? Try Lavalife ? get 7 days FREE! Sign up NOW.
http://www.lavalife.com/clickthru/clickthru.act?id=ninemsn&context=an99&a=20233&locale=en_AU&_t=33473