New words from qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch
DaH qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIchDaq mu'mey chu' 'anglu'bogh leghlaH Hoch! The new words that were reveled at qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch are now available for all to see! https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/ If you spot any typos or issues, let me know! qurgh
I can't understand the new use of {tlhoS}; what does it mean "{tlhoS} with a negative verb" ? Were there any examples given ? And with regards to the {me'cheD}, can we use it to refer to the cross of crucifixion ? Other than that, I'm happy to see, that some of the words I requested, were actually granted.. I would bet real money that this could never happen. Do' jISuDbe'pu'.. ~ nI'ghma
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 09:43 mayqel qunenoS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't understand the new use of {tlhoS}; what does it mean "{tlhoS} with a negative verb" ? Were there any examples given ?
I wasn't there so I don't know about any examples, but it obviously means something like this: {tlhoS Suvbe' chaH} "they barely fought" And with regards to the {me'cheD}, can we use it to refer to the cross of
crucifixion ?
I'd understand {HuSmeH me'cheD}. Other than that, I'm happy to see, that some of the words I requested, were
actually granted.. I would bet real money that this could never happen. Do' jISuDbe'pu'..
-- De'vID
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 08:47, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
DaH qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIchDaq mu'mey chu' 'anglu'bogh leghlaH Hoch!
The new words that were reveled at qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch are now available for all to see!
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/
If you spot any typos or issues, let me know!
Is {rarwI'} defined as "plug" or "connector"? Also, how are {vIQ} and {vIQmoH} used? It seems that their definitions are reversed, but maybe some examples can clarify. How are they related to {voQ}? -- De'vID
On 7/23/2018 2:47 AM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
DaH qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIchDaq mu'mey chu' 'anglu'bogh leghlaH Hoch!
The new words that were reveled at qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch are now available for all to see!
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/
If you spot any typos or issues, let me know!
Very nicely published, thank you. *gher'ID* has some odd plurals in its gloss of /results, outcome, effect, repercussions, consequence, ramification./ Is there a reason some words like /repercussions/ is plural while others like /consequence/ are not? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I agree with SuStel: very nicely done. qurgh, thanks for taking the time to publish these. N.B. There seems to be quite a few synonyms/homonyms this time – at least in English. For example, I count six new verbs for “stick/stuck”: DIy be stuck (v) (like when you can’t get a door open or a window open) HIr be stuck (v) (like a stamp is stuck to an envelope or a spitwad is stuck on a wall) lIQ be stuck (v) (like when you can’t solve an algebra problem or a crossword puzzle) ngam adhere, stick (v) (with -moH, the object is the thing that’s stuck to or adhering to something else, marked by -Daq) ngItlh be stuck (v) (like when your car is stuck in the snow or Santa is stuck in the chimney or a ring is stuck on your finger or a nail is stuck in a piece of wood and you can’t pull it out) Sat be stuck (v) (like being stuck in a meeting or stuck in traffic (also, for some reason, it be would be for a cat stuck in a tree)) … and two words for different meanings of “cross” (i.e. verb and noun): vech cross (v) (as in a bridge crossing a river, etc) me’cheD cross (+), ex (x) (n) The parenthetical comment is a clue there may be other words, though you’ll need to search them in English as the list is in alphabetical order by Klingon word. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons From: SuStel On 7/23/2018 2:47 AM, qurgh lungqIj wrote: The new words that were reveled at qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch are now available for all to see! https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/ If you spot any typos or issues, let me know! Very nicely published, thank you. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:06 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/23/2018 2:47 AM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
DaH qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIchDaq mu'mey chu' 'anglu'bogh leghlaH Hoch!
The new words that were reveled at qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch are now available for all to see!
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/
If you spot any typos or issues, let me know!
Very nicely published, thank you.
You're welcome!
*gher'ID* has some odd plurals in its gloss of *results, outcome, effect, repercussions, consequence, ramification.* Is there a reason some words like *repercussions* is plural while others like *consequence* are not?
That's how is was presented to us:
English: results, outcome, effect, repercussions, consequence, ramification (n) Klingon: gher'ID Notes: "results" with the sense of "score, tally" is {mIvwa'mey} When I first saw it, I thought that it was referring the set of results of a single/collective action, which could be singular or plural. It could also be that they should all be singular. So I will reach out to Marc and ask him to clarify it. qurgh
If you could ask him about the tlhoS with a negative verb too , that would be great.. ~ nI'ghma
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 19:20 mayqel qunenoS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If you could ask him about the tlhoS with a negative verb too , that would be great..
Why is this necessary? Isn't it already very clear? With a positive verb, you almost do something. With a negative verb, you barely do it. -- De'vID
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:22 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 19:20 mayqel qunenoS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If you could ask him about the tlhoS with a negative verb too , that would be great..
Why is this necessary? Isn't it already very clear? With a positive verb, you almost do something. With a negative verb, you barely do it.
That's exactly how is works. {tlhoS chab vISop} - "I almost ate pie" (ie "I didn't eat pie") {tlhoS chab vISopbe'} - "I almost didn't eat pie" (ie "I ate pie, but only barely") {tlhoS Duj vIqIp} - "I almost hit the ship (ie "I missed it") {tlhoS Duj vIqIpbe'} - "I almost didn't hit the ship" (ie "I hit it, but only barely") qurgh
There is something I don't understand with regards to the additional definition of "whereas" which was given to the {'ach}. How is it possible to write a sentence, where the reader will understand only the "whereas", instead of the other meanings of {'ach} ? ~ nI'ghma
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:07 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There is something I don't understand with regards to the additional definition of "whereas" which was given to the {'ach}.
How is it possible to write a sentence, where the reader will understand only the "whereas", instead of the other meanings of {'ach} ?
~ nI'ghma
Use the idiom that came with it. I'd say something like: {Ha'DIbaH neH Sop loDnal 'ach, ro' mojchugh ghIt, naH neH Sop be'nalDaj} "The husband eats only meat, whereas his wife eats only vegetables" {mIp ghowron 'ej ngeD yInDaj 'ach, ro' mojchugh ghIt, mIpHa' torgh 'ej Qatlhqu' yInDaj} "Gowron is rich and his life is easy, whereas Torg is poor and his life is very difficult" qurgh
On 7/23/2018 3:14 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:07 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
There is something I don't understand with regards to the additional definition of "whereas" which was given to the {'ach}.
How is it possible to write a sentence, where the reader will understand only the "whereas", instead of the other meanings of {'ach} ?
~ nI'ghma
Use the idiom that came with it. I'd say something like:
{Ha'DIbaH neH Sop loDnal 'ach, ro' mojchugh ghIt, naH neH Sop be'nalDaj} "The husband eats only meat, whereas his wife eats only vegetables"
{mIp ghowron 'ej ngeD yInDaj 'ach, ro' mojchugh ghIt, mIpHa' torgh 'ej Qatlhqu' yInDaj} "Gowron is rich and his life is easy, whereas Torg is poor and his life is very difficult"
But is /whereas/ simply a synonym for /but,/ or is there some subtle difference? The idiomatic expression appears to be an alternative to using *'ach* as /whereas,/ but it is not made clear what the difference between /but/ and /whereas/ is supposed to be. Dictionary.com defines this kind of /but/ as "on the contrary," and /whereas /as "while on the contrary." Not much difference there. It looks like Okrand is using /whereas/ to contrast two approximately equal alternatives, and that this is somehow different from ordinary /but./ If this is the case, then *'ach* meaning both of them means Klingon doesn't distinguish this meaning except with the idiomatic expression. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Most of the meanings of {'ach} express some kind of contrast, but Klingon collapses all the various nuances of the English words ("but", "however", "nevertheless", "whereas", etc.) into one word. "I speak English, but he speaks Klingon" isn't significantly different from "I speak English, whereas he speaks Klingon." In most cases it probably won't be necessary to worry too much about what specific word will eventually be used to translate {'ach}. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:07 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There is something I don't understand with regards to the additional definition of "whereas" which was given to the {'ach}.
How is it possible to write a sentence, where the reader will understand only the "whereas", instead of the other meanings of {'ach} ?
~ nI'ghma
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I asked Marc about gher'ID: ----quote As for {gher'ID} — All of the English words could be singular or plural, whichever makes the most sense given the context. If, in Klingon, it's important to indicate plurality, use {-mey}; if it's important to indicate singularity, use {wa'} along with {neH} (or something along those lines). ------/quote So, I'm thinking something like: {pawta' gher'ID! loS qaD vIQappu' 'ach wej wa' gher'ID 'anglu'} "The results are in! I won four challenges but one result is not yet revealed" qurgh On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:10 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:06 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/23/2018 2:47 AM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
DaH qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIchDaq mu'mey chu' 'anglu'bogh leghlaH Hoch!
The new words that were reveled at qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch are now available for all to see!
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/
If you spot any typos or issues, let me know!
Very nicely published, thank you.
You're welcome!
*gher'ID* has some odd plurals in its gloss of *results, outcome, effect, repercussions, consequence, ramification.* Is there a reason some words like *repercussions* is plural while others like *consequence* are not?
That's how is was presented to us:
English: results, outcome, effect, repercussions, consequence, ramification (n) Klingon: gher'ID Notes: "results" with the sense of "score, tally" is {mIvwa'mey}
When I first saw it, I thought that it was referring the set of results of a single/collective action, which could be singular or plural.
It could also be that they should all be singular.
So I will reach out to Marc and ask him to clarify it.
qurgh
I'm having trouble figuring out some of the distinctions between the "stuck" verbs. *mulIQmoHpu'.* What is the difference between *DIy* and *ngItlh*? It seems like the former is used for things that get stuck or jammed on their own parts, like a door and its frame, while the latter is for two things that are distinct and can theoretically move apart from each other. But I'm not sure I've really captured the difference there. What's the semantic difference between *HIr* and *ngam*? Does *HIr* imply being held in place? Which word would be better used for, say, a gecko walking on a wall, sticking to it with its feet? My guess is that it would fall under the category of *ngam*. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:42 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
I asked Marc about gher'ID:
----quote
As for {gher'ID} — All of the English words could be singular or plural, whichever makes the most sense given the context. If, in Klingon, it's important to indicate plurality, use {-mey}; if it's important to indicate singularity, use {wa'} along with {neH} (or something along those lines).
------/quote
So, I'm thinking something like:
{pawta' gher'ID! loS qaD vIQappu' 'ach wej wa' gher'ID 'anglu'} "The results are in! I won four challenges but one result is not yet revealed"
qurgh
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:10 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:06 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/23/2018 2:47 AM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
DaH qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIchDaq mu'mey chu' 'anglu'bogh leghlaH Hoch!
The new words that were reveled at qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch are now available for all to see!
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/
If you spot any typos or issues, let me know!
Very nicely published, thank you.
You're welcome!
*gher'ID* has some odd plurals in its gloss of *results, outcome, effect, repercussions, consequence, ramification.* Is there a reason some words like *repercussions* is plural while others like *consequence* are not?
That's how is was presented to us:
English: results, outcome, effect, repercussions, consequence, ramification (n) Klingon: gher'ID Notes: "results" with the sense of "score, tally" is {mIvwa'mey}
When I first saw it, I thought that it was referring the set of results of a single/collective action, which could be singular or plural.
It could also be that they should all be singular.
So I will reach out to Marc and ask him to clarify it.
qurgh
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/23/2018 4:00 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
What is the difference between *DIy* and *ngItlh*? It seems like the former is used for things that get stuck or jammed on their own parts, like a door and its frame, while the latter is for two things that are distinct and can theoretically move apart from each other. But I'm not sure I've really captured the difference there.
My impression is that *DIy* means being unable to operate due to immobile parts, while *ngItlh* means unable to move from place to place due to some kind of external resistance.
What's the semantic difference between *HIr* and *ngam*? Does *HIr* imply being held in place? Which word would be better used for, say, a gecko walking on a wall, sticking to it with its feet? My guess is that it would fall under the category of *ngam*.
*HIr* is stative and *ngam* is active. The thing sticks *(ngam)* because it is stuck *(HIr).* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The list contains the {raS'IS} "seed"; isn't this a word from qep'a' 2016 ? ~ nI'ghma
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The list contains the {raS'IS} "seed"; isn't this a word from qep'a' 2016 ?
~ nI'ghma
Yes. Either MO simply forgot he already announced it, or perhaps he meant to give it another meaning (maybe "grain" as in "grain of sand") but accidentally put the already-known meaning.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The list contains the {raS'IS} "seed"; isn't this a word from qep'a' 2016 ?
Its inclusion in the published list is an apparent minor error by the person who published it. Both parts of the Klingon phrase for "grain of sand" were assumed to be previously unknown. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The list contains the {raS'IS} "seed"; isn't this a word from qep'a' 2016 ?
Its inclusion in the published list is an apparent minor error by the person who published it. Both parts of the Klingon phrase for "grain of sand" were assumed to be previously unknown.
-- ghunchu'wI'
Qap tlham! I meant to remove it when I posted it online, but I was running on limited sleep at the end of a 18 hour day and it slipped my mind. It's gone now. qurgh
Some excellent and interesting new words in the list. I'm only sorry I couldn't have been at qep'a' and joined in the excitement of the first receipt of them. Regarding 'ay "to float in or on a liquid", I presume that's supposed to be distinct from 'al "to float in or on air"? Even if so, the similarity does suggest some kind of etymological relationship might be intended, which is intriguing in itself. QeS 'utlh
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some excellent and interesting new words in the list. I'm only sorry I couldn't have been at qep'a' and joined in the excitement of the first receipt of them.
Regarding *'ay* "to float in or on a liquid", I presume that's supposed to be distinct from *'al* "to float in or on air"? Even if so, the similarity does suggest some kind of etymological relationship might be intended, which is intriguing in itself.
On a similar note: *ya'rIS* "echo" is apparently a pun on Toyota car models, but the fact that it contains *rIS* "emit sound" hints at some in-character etymological connection. There's also the similarity of *voQ* "choke" and *vIQ* "smother, suffocate", which was probably intentional.
ghItlhpu' nIqolay, jatlh:
On a similar note: ya'rIS "echo" is apparently a pun on Toyota car models,
Which reminds me, I'm pretty sure I know a couple of the other puns from this year's words as well. pep'en is fairly straightforward, but I think I can see the one behind neqratlh too, and all I can say is 'oy'! QeS 'utlh
On 2018年07月27日 04:23, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
ghItlhpu' nIqolay, jatlh:
On a similar note: ya'rIS "echo" is apparently a pun on Toyota car models,
Which reminds me, I'm pretty sure I know a couple of the other puns from this year's words as well. *pep'en* is fairly straightforward, but I think I can see the one behind *neqratlh* too, and all I can say is *'oy'*!
'IqngIl coil, spring (n) What walks down stairs, alone or in pairs...? -- Stephen A. Carter scarter@hticn.com Nagoya, Japan
‘otHel dock (n) (any place a vessel is moored, even if there is no structure) Another Shakespeare pun! -- Voragh -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Carter On 2018年07月27日 04:23, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
ghItlhpu' nIqolay, jatlh:
On a similar note: ya'rIS "echo" is apparently a pun on Toyota car models,
Which reminds me, I'm pretty sure I know a couple of the other puns from this year's words as well. *pep'en* is fairly straightforward, but I think I can see the one behind *neqratlh* too, and all I can say is *'oy'*!
'IqngIl coil, spring (n) What walks down stairs, alone or in pairs...? -- Stephen A. Carter scarter@hticn.com Nagoya, Japan _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
qo'rob puppet (n) (this is as in “puppet state” or “puppet government”) Sounds like the name of Theo Marcuse's character in TOS "Catspaw" who, when revealed in his true form, was portrayed by a puppet. BTW, the explanation of this word makes me question whether Kermit the Frog would be described as {qo'rob}. Or perhaps, if the word means one state under the control of another, Klingons would make the same metaphorical connection, only in reverse. ~mIp'av
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW, the explanation of this word makes me question whether Kermit the Frog would be described as {qo'rob}. Or perhaps, if the word means one state under the control of another, Klingons would make the same metaphorical connection, only in reverse.
He wouldn't be. A few lines further down is: *SIrgh raghghan* puppet (n) (literally “string doll”, the doll that is used in performances) At the qep'a' I had a conversation about whether {naQ raghghan} would also be understood as a type of puppet. qurgh
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:46 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW, the explanation of this word makes me question whether Kermit the Frog would be described as {qo'rob}. Or perhaps, if the word means one state under the control of another, Klingons would make the same metaphorical connection, only in reverse.
He wouldn't be. A few lines further down is:
*SIrgh raghghan* puppet (n) (literally “string doll”, the doll that is used in performances)
At the qep'a' I had a conversation about whether {naQ raghghan} would also be understood as a type of puppet.
qurgh
So I'm thinking the *SIrgh* in *SIrgh raghghan* must refer to the strings that control a marionette. Wouldn't Kermit be a *ghop raghghan* then? ~mIp'av
Has anyone commented on the pun in {raghghan} yet? <g> -- Voragh From: qurgh lungqIj Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 7:46 PM On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com<mailto:bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>> wrote: BTW, the explanation of this word makes me question whether Kermit the Frog would be described as {qo'rob}. Or perhaps, if the word means one state under the control of another, Klingons would make the same metaphorical connection, only in reverse. He wouldn't be. A few lines further down is: SIrgh raghghan puppet (n) (literally “string doll”, the doll that is used in performances) At the qep'a' I had a conversation about whether {naQ raghghan} would also be understood as a type of puppet. qurgh
We did at qep'a' a bunch of times. It was the first one many people got. On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Has anyone commented on the pun in {raghghan} yet? <g>
-- Voragh
*From:* qurgh lungqIj *Sent:* Friday, July 27, 2018 7:46 PM
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW, the explanation of this word makes me question whether Kermit the Frog would be described as {qo'rob}. Or perhaps, if the word means one state under the control of another, Klingons would make the same metaphorical connection, only in reverse.
He wouldn't be. A few lines further down is:
*SIrgh raghghan* puppet (n) (literally “string doll”, the doll that is used in performances)
At the qep'a' I had a conversation about whether {naQ raghghan} would also be understood as a type of puppet.
qurgh
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I received a correction to the list from Marc, along with a missing word: {vIQ} and {vIQmoH} had their definitions swapped accidentally, DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu', so they should be: {vIQ} "suffocate" (does not take an object) {vIQmoH} "smother" The left-out word is: {vaS} "be wide, broad" (referring to side-to-side distance, not things like a "broad topic" or "wide range of opinion" or "eyes wide open") These updates have been applied to the page on KLI.org. qurgh On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:47 AM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
DaH qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIchDaq mu'mey chu' 'anglu'bogh leghlaH Hoch!
The new words that were reveled at qep'a' cha'maH vaghDIch are now available for all to see!
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/
If you spot any typos or issues, let me know!
qurgh
I went to this address: https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/ But these updates have not yet been applied. ~ nI'ghma
DaH yInIDqa'! qurgh On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 3:35 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I went to this address:
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-vaghdich/new-words/
But these updates have not yet been applied.
~ nI'ghma
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jul 28, 2018, at 16:03, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 at 20:54, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote: The left-out word is:
{vaS} "be wide, broad" (referring to side-to-side distance, not things like a "broad topic" or "wide range of opinion" or "eyes wide open")
vaS'a' vaS'a'?
ghobe', lIchopbe'chugh ghewmey SuD.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (11)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
qurgh lungqIj -
Rhona Fenwick -
Stephen A. Carter -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel