tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 08 13:38:45 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:37:23 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

ja' Doq:
> Similarly, the definition for {tuQ}: "wear (clothes)" might simply
> have the parenthetical to differentiate this verb from all the other
> meanings of the word "wear", like {QopmoH}: "wear out". There's
> nothing really compelling about choosing "clothes" as direct object
> in this definition, and it conflicts with the definitions of the
> related forms of {tuQ} he gives us.

majQa'!  bImeqchu'.  chopon.
munuQtaH wa' ghIlab ghew neH:  qatlh "tuQ (v): wear clothes" qonbe'?

-- ghunchu'wI'

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
    • From: Doq <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
    • From: Doq <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Of bayside be loda
• Next by Date: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Previous by thread: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level