tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 04 11:31:20 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)

...Paul ([email protected])

From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:29:07 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Doq wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:30 PM, ...Paul wrote:
>> That's my argument in a nutshell, all circling back to the original
>> point
>> -- what do we call a conjunction?  :)
>
> chuvmey.

'ach cha' mu'tlhegh rarbogh mu' qech'e' Dellu'meH le'be' mu'vetlh. 
jIqar vIneH jIjatlhtaHvIS.

That word's not specific enough for describing the idea of a word that 
connects two sentences.  I want to be accurate when I'm speaking.

...Paul

          ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
   ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
    "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
         the point is to discover them." -- Galileo Galilei

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
  - From: Doq <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
  - From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
- Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
  - From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
- Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
  - From: Doq <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
Next by Date: Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
Previous by thread: Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
Next by thread: Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
Index(es):