tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 15 21:24:10 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: chagh

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: chagh
• Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:20:31 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Doq wrote:

> I'm putting together a dictionary for my own use. I'm wondering if we
> have any canon to reveal whether the subject of {chagh} is the object
> losing altitude, or the person releasing the descending object.

A little over a year ago, nobody objected to {chagh} being listed as  
unused in canon.  I don't think that has changed in the meantime.

/tlhIngan-Hol/2006/October/msg00200.html

I feel that the existence of the word {pum} "fall" is sufficient  
reason to consider {chagh} "drop" to have the falling object as  
the...um...object.  But there's no canonical evidence for using it  
one way or the other.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: chagh
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• References:
  • chagh
    • From: Doq <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
• Next by Date: Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
• Previous by thread: chagh
• Next by thread: Re: chagh
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level