[1957] in tlhIngan-Hol
jaghlI' Hoch...'u'vam Hoch
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Nov 6 10:26:52 1993
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: dbarron57@aol.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 93 10:10:31 EST
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Errors-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
Reply-To: <dbarron57@aol.com>
I appriciate Guido#1 responce to my lullaby.
I do feel I can justify jaghlI' Hoch and 'u'vam Hoch by simply
refering to TKD 3.4. where N1 N2 construction would mean " N2 of the N1".
Thus 'u'vam Hoch would mean "all the this universe" or everything of this
universe". Thus we are still saved Hoch from becoming a verb/adjective.
I welcome your debate.
David Barron
