tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 26 08:29:36 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
• Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:27:07 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

ja' qa'vaj:

> I always saw {naDev} as the noun being modified by the relative  
> clause (to
> use your terminology).

It's TKD's terminology, not mine.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
    • From: qa'vaj <[email protected]>
  • Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
  • Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
    • From: qa'vaj <[email protected]>
  • Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
  • Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
    • From: qa'vaj <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: mughato' (noun)
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: yoH (verb)
• Previous by thread: Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
• Next by thread: Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level