Seemingly, this is a rather simple thing to be confused about. Unfortunately though, I *am* confused about it, so I need to ask.. In english/greek we can say: "Why in order for you to help me, I need to feed your cat ?" or "In order for you to help me, why do I need to feed your cat ? When it comes to klingon, which of the following is the correct choice ? {qatlh choQaHmeH vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?} {choQaHmeH qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?} ~mayqel *capricorn* qunen'oS
Interesting question. Both of those Klingon sentences make sense to me. I think that {qatlh} should go at the head of the whole sentence as usual, since the -meH clause is just a clause rather than a stand-alone sentence itself; and qatlh in the middle just looks… odd… to me intuitively. In English the use of a comma (without a conjunction) is often a sign that something is “out of order” in the sentence, and that it can be rewritten without the comma. The “natural” form of that statement in English would be: “Why do I need to feed your cat in order for you to help me.” —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2019, at 09:15, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Seemingly, this is a rather simple thing to be confused about.
Unfortunately though, I *am* confused about it, so I need to ask..
In english/greek we can say:
"Why in order for you to help me, I need to feed your cat ?" or "In order for you to help me, why do I need to feed your cat ?
When it comes to klingon, which of the following is the correct choice ?
{qatlh choQaHmeH vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?} {choQaHmeH qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?}
~mayqel *capricorn* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Feb 18, 2019, at 09:15, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
When it comes to klingon, which of the following is the correct choice ?
{qatlh choQaHmeH vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?} {choQaHmeH qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?}
On 2/18/2019 9:30 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Interesting question. Both of those Klingon sentences make sense to me. I think that {qatlh} should go at the head of the whole sentence as usual, since the -meH clause is just a clause rather than a stand-alone sentence itself; and qatlh in the middle just looks… odd… to me intuitively.
Except I would expect the *qatlh* to go at the beginning of the /clause/ of which it is a part, not the sentence as a whole. I see subordinate and purpose clauses as less closely connected to the main clause, and not actually a part of it — they're different clauses. Imagine you instead asked, /Why do I need to feed your cat if I help you?/ *qaQaHchugh, qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS? qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS, qaQaHchugh?* I think mayqel's comprehension problem comes from the fact that he uses parenthetical phrases /a lot,/ and he's trying to do it here. *qatlh — qaQaHmeH — vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS?* As a bit of extemporaneous explanation this would be just fine, but do too much of that and your high school teachers will start marking you off for poor style. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 18.02.2019 um 15:53 schrieb SuStel:
Imagine you instead asked, /Why do I need to feed your cat if I help you?/
*qaQaHchugh, qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS? qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS, qaQaHchugh?*
You have just interchanged the chugh-part, which is not allowed with meH-clauses. There is at least one canon example of placing {qatlh} in the middle of a sentence. But isn't there a difference between a {-chugh} sentence and a purpose clause? (I'm seriously asking) {potlhbe'chugh yay qatlh pe''eghlu'?} "If winning is not important, then why keep score?" (TKW p. 135) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TheKlingonWay
On 2/18/2019 9:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 18.02.2019 um 15:53 schrieb SuStel:
Imagine you instead asked, /Why do I need to feed your cat if I help you?/
*qaQaHchugh, qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS? qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS, qaQaHchugh?*
You have just interchanged the chugh-part, which is not allowed with meH-clauses.
Intentionally, to more clearly illustrate the boundaries between clauses. The main clause remains the same, and if we can move the /if-/clause we can see where the boundaries of the main clause are.
There is at least one canon example of placing {qatlh} in the middle of a sentence. But isn't there a difference between a {-chugh} sentence and a purpose clause? (I'm seriously asking)
A difference, yes, but does the difference put the purpose clause inside the main clause, while other subordinate clauses remain outside of the main clause? I'm not convinced of that. How about this: *jagh DajeymeH nIteb yISuvrup*/In order to defeat the enemy, be ready to fight alone./ Adverbials come at the beginning, barring time expressions. Yet the purpose clause comes first in this sentence. *qatlh* is basically just a question form of an adverbial. Why isn't it *nIteb jagh DajeymeH yISuvrup?* But I can also supply a counterargument. *vaj malopmeH tlhIHvaD nob SaSuqpu'* /So to celebrate, I've gotten you all a gift./ (Hallmark commercial) Here, the adverbial *vaj* is placed before the purpose clause. So I don't think there's an exact answer here. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 18.02.2019 um 16:28 schrieb SuStel:
How about this: *jagh DajeymeH nIteb yISuvrup*/In order to defeat the enemy, be ready to fight alone./ Adverbials come at the beginning, barring time expressions. Yet the purpose clause comes first in this sentence. *qatlh* is basically just a question form of an adverbial. Why isn't it *nIteb jagh DajeymeH yISuvrup?*
That's agood point which I like. It confirms the placement of qatlh in mid-sentence.
But I can also supply a counterargument. *vaj malopmeH tlhIHvaD nob SaSuqpu'* /So to celebrate, I've gotten you all a gift./ (Hallmark commercial) Here, the adverbial *vaj* is placed before the purpose clause.
Here, the vaj works more like a conjunction. Using it after the -meH part makes less sense.
So I don't think there's an exact answer here.
Not really, but these example help little bit. Stil better than having no examples at all. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Adverbials
On 2/18/2019 10:41 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
But I can also supply a counterargument. *vaj malopmeH tlhIHvaD nob SaSuqpu'* /So to celebrate, I've gotten you all a gift./ (Hallmark commercial) Here, the adverbial *vaj* is placed before the purpose clause.
Here, the vaj works more like a conjunction. Using it after the -meH part makes less sense.
Not at all. It's an adverbial, meaning that this sentence is a logical continuation of whatever came before. I think Okrand wasn't really thinking carefully about this issue, and just closely translated the English. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 18.02.2019 um 15:15 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
"Why in order for you to help me, I need to feed your cat ?"
Well, let's st aside the intended meaning of that, because I think that's not how -meH works.
When it comes to klingon, which of the following is the correct choice ?
{qatlh choQaHmeH vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?} {choQaHmeH qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?}
My first thought here is that the clause with {-meH} must always precede the verb whose purpose it's describing, but there is no information on whether anything can be between those. In my opinion, the {qatlh} should preceed the entire phrase because it's questioning the entire thing. I think having it in the middle breaks up the connection between the purpose clause and the second part. Taken more literally, one could argue that is sounds like one is saying {choQaHmeH qatlh} "a why to help me" which seems nonsense, if not focusing on the rest. Sticking closely to the rules: - The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is describing. - qatlh "occurs at the beginning of the sentence." But still ... both suggestions sound right to me, so it's a really good question. I'm curious to see what others find about this. :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Questions
On 2/18/2019 9:52 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Sticking closely to the rules: - The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is describing. - qatlh "occurs at the beginning of the sentence."
Except we know that sometimes when Okrand says /sentence/ he means the verbal clause under consideration. You would not, for instance, translate /I ask why I was chosen/ as *qatlh jIjatlh vIwIvlu'pu'?* A sentence-as-object is still a sentence, but you'd put the *qatlh* with the piece it belongs with: *jIjatlh qatlh vIwIvlu'pu'; qatlh vIwIvlu'pu' jIjatlh.* It's a very murky area of Klingon grammar. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 18.02.2019 um 15:58 schrieb SuStel: Yes, this is a murky area of Klingon grammar :-)
Except we know that sometimes when Okrand says /sentence/ he means the verbal clause under consideration.
Yes, of course.
You would not, for instance, translate /I ask why I was chosen/ as *qatlh jIjatlh vIwIvlu'pu'?* A sentence-as-object is still a sentence, but you'd put the *qatlh* with the piece it belongs with: *jIjatlh qatlh vIwIvlu'pu'; qatlh vIwIvlu'pu' jIjatlh.*
I agree with that example, but I think it's different from what mayqel asked. He had a question: Why was I chosen to fight the enemy? Is that {qatlh jagh vISuvmeH vIwIvlu'} or {jagh vISuvmeH qatlh vIwIvlu'?} - at this point, they both sound fine to me. And using jatlh gets us a lot more into trouble. First, {jatlh} is such a special situation, and next, you are using the word "why" not as a question word, but in a way that it changes a question to a statement. There's a difference between "I ask why I was chosen." and "I ask: why was I chosen?" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Questions
On 2/18/2019 10:08 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 18.02.2019 um 15:58 schrieb SuStel: Yes, this is a murky area of Klingon grammar :-)
Except we know that sometimes when Okrand says /sentence/ he means the verbal clause under consideration.
Yes, of course.
You would not, for instance, translate /I ask why I was chosen/ as *qatlh jIjatlh vIwIvlu'pu'?* A sentence-as-object is still a sentence, but you'd put the *qatlh* with the piece it belongs with: *jIjatlh qatlh vIwIvlu'pu'; qatlh vIwIvlu'pu' jIjatlh.*
I agree with that example, but I think it's different from what mayqel asked.
I am choosing examples that are deliberately different, to try to illustrate the issues involved.
And using jatlh gets us a lot more into trouble. First, {jatlh} is such a special situation, and next, you are using the word "why" not as a question word, but in a way that it changes a question to a statement.
There's a difference between "I ask why I was chosen." and "I ask: why was I chosen?"
Not in Klingon. Much has been made of "direct quotations" by certain people, but Klingon happily uses so-called direct quotations where English will use so-called "indirect quotations." *qaja'pu' HIqaghQo' *or *HIqaghQo' qaja'pu**'* /I told you not to interrupt me. /(TKD)/ / Here, Okrand is in no way interested in maintaining any difference between /I told you not to interrupt me/ and /I told you, "Don't interrupt me!" / I didn't have to use *jatlh* to make an example, though. *nuq ta'pu' 'ej qatlh ta'pu'*/What did he do and why did he do it?/ Compound sentences are sentences, and if we were to follow the rules too closely, we would be considering *qatlh nuq ta'pu' 'ej ta'pu',* which is obviously wrong. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2019, at 10:22, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: Compound sentences are sentences, and if we were to follow the rules too closely, we would be considering qatlh nuq ta'pu' 'ej ta'pu', which is obviously wrong.
There’s a difference in relationship between compound sentences and sentences with clauses. You can drop the {‘ej} and both statements make sense independent of one another — the conjunction serves to link them logically. With the -meH (or a -moH) statement, both parts of the sentence are intrinsically interrelated you can’t separate them apart and have them make sense without one another.
On 2/18/2019 10:28 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
On Feb 18, 2019, at 10:22, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote: Compound sentences are sentences, and if we were to follow the rules too closely, we would be considering *qatlh nuq ta'pu' 'ej ta'pu',* which is obviously wrong. There’s a difference in relationship between compound sentences and sentences with clauses. You can drop the {‘ej} and both statements make sense independent of one another — the conjunction serves to link them logically.
With the -meH (or a -moH) statement, both parts of the sentence are intrinsically interrelated you can’t separate them apart and have them make sense without one another.
That's true, but not relevant. I am illustrating why you can't just see the word /sentence/ and automatically know what you're talking about, not that purpose clauses and compound sentences are the same thing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 18.02.2019 um 16:22 schrieb SuStel:
There's a difference between "I ask why I was chosen." and "I ask: why was I chosen?"
Not in Klingon. Much has been made of "direct quotations" by certain people, but Klingon happily uses so-called direct quotations where English will use so-called "indirect quotations."
What I mean is when I write "I tell you why I ate the pie" it means that I am going to tell you the reason for eating the pie. If I write "I tell you 'why I ate the pie'" it only means that I'm going to speak the words "why I ate the pie". So you would agree if I say things like {qatlh HoD HoH 'e' vISov} "I know why he killed the captain" or avoiding the QAO-Problem: {qatlh HoD HoH jIja'} "I tell why he killed the captain." {chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov} "I know how the ship is constructed." ?? PS: I'm really just talking about an interesting topic. No offense intended. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Questions
On 2/18/2019 10:36 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 18.02.2019 um 16:22 schrieb SuStel:
There's a difference between "I ask why I was chosen." and "I ask: why was I chosen?"
Not in Klingon. Much has been made of "direct quotations" by certain people, but Klingon happily uses so-called direct quotations where English will use so-called "indirect quotations."
What I mean is when I write "I tell you why I ate the pie" it means that I am going to tell you the reason for eating the pie. If I write "I tell you 'why I ate the pie'" it only means that I'm going to speak the words "why I ate the pie".
What you're describing is in English performed with a relative pronoun. That's not what happens when you say *jIjatlh qatlh vIwIvlu'pu'.* It means /I ask why I was chosen,/ not /I say why I was chosen./ The latter would require a relative pronoun, which Klingon doesn't have. The former is simply reported speech: /I say, "Why was I chosen?"/ It means exactly the same as /I ask why I was chosen./ In Klingon both of those sentences are translated into *jIjatlh qatlh vIwIvlu'pu'.* (You might add a *jIghel* somewhere nearby to make clear that a question is asked, but it's pretty clear from the reported speech.)
So you would agree if I say things like
{qatlh HoD HoH 'e' vISov} "I know why he killed the captain"
No, this is a relative pronoun in English and cannot be translated this way in Klingon.
or avoiding the QAO-Problem:
{qatlh HoD HoH jIja'} "I tell why he killed the captain."
No. You didn't /tell/ anything here; you asked a question. If you had said *qatlh HoD HoHpu' jIjatlh,* I'd understand this as /I ask why he killed the captain./ It's no different in meaning from /I say, "Why did he kill the captain?"/ (Notice that the perfective is required, because the killing is completed.)
{chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov} "I know how the ship is constructed."
No. This is a relative pronoun in English, and cannot be translated this way in Klingon.
PS: I'm really just talking about an interesting topic. No offense intended.
None taken; I also think it's interesting. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:29, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
{chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov} "I know how the ship is constructed." No. This is a relative pronoun in English, and cannot be translated this way in Klingon.
Different context, but would the following be valid? {chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’ ‘e’ vIjanglaH} “How is the ship constructed, I can answer that.” Or is it still problematic? —jevreH
On 2/18/2019 11:34 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:29, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
{chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov} "I know how the ship is constructed."
No. This is a relative pronoun in English, and cannot be translated this way in Klingon.
Different context, but would the following be valid?
{chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’ ‘e’ vIjanglaH} “How is the ship constructed, I can answer that.”
Or is it still problematic?
Same problem. It's treating *chay'* like a relative pronoun, which isn't the case in Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel is absolutely right. One might choose to work around this the same way that American Sign Language does it. They don’t have relative pronouns or relative clauses at all. Instead, they pair a rhetorical question with its answer. It’s nearly identical to your attempt, but there is no Sentence As Object. It’s just two sentence next to each other: chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’? jISov. or chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’? mIw vISov. This lacks the “Question As Object” illegal grammar. It’s perfectly legal, and accomplishes the same goal. It’s not like English, but it conveys the meaning. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 2:09 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/18/2019 11:34 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:29, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
{chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov} "I know how the ship is constructed." No. This is a relative pronoun in English, and cannot be translated this way in Klingon.
Different context, but would the following be valid?
{chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’ ‘e’ vIjanglaH} “How is the ship constructed, I can answer that.”
Or is it still problematic?
Same problem. It's treating chay' like a relative pronoun, which isn't the case in Klingon.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/18/2019 5:49 PM, Will Martin wrote:
SuStel is absolutely right. One might choose to work around this the same way that American Sign Language does it.
They don’t have relative pronouns or relative clauses at all. Instead, they pair a rhetorical question with its answer. It’s nearly identical to your attempt, but there is no Sentence As Object. It’s just two sentence next to each other:
chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’? jISov.
or
chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’? mIw vISov.
This lacks the “Question As Object” illegal grammar. It’s perfectly legal, and accomplishes the same goal. It’s not like English, but it conveys the meaning.
Not my preferred solution. Rhetorical questions to avoid illegal grammar seem very out of character for the language. I'm not saying it can't be done or that Klingons don't do it, mind you. A better solution: *Duj chenmoHmeH mIw vISov*/I know the ship-making procedure./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Excellent suggestion. While I suspect either would work in conversation, I prefer your suggestion to mine. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:00 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/18/2019 5:49 PM, Will Martin wrote: SuStel is absolutely right. One might choose to work around this the same way that American Sign Language does it.
They don’t have relative pronouns or relative clauses at all. Instead, they pair a rhetorical question with its answer. It’s nearly identical to your attempt, but there is no Sentence As Object. It’s just two sentence next to each other:
chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’? jISov.
or
chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’? mIw vISov.
This lacks the “Question As Object” illegal grammar. It’s perfectly legal, and accomplishes the same goal. It’s not like English, but it conveys the meaning. Not my preferred solution. Rhetorical questions to avoid illegal grammar seem very out of character for the language. I'm not saying it can't be done or that Klingons don't do it, mind you.
A better solution: Duj chenmoHmeH mIw vISov I know the ship-making procedure.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On second look, your suggestion is a jewel. It is grammatically ambiguous, but both interpretations have the same meaning. The {-meH} clause can apply to either the object or the main verb. Either you know the ship building method, or, for the purpose of building a ship, you know a method. Beautiful. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
On Feb 18, 2019, at 9:48 PM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Excellent suggestion. While I suspect either would work in conversation, I prefer your suggestion to mine.
Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:00 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/18/2019 5:49 PM, Will Martin wrote: SuStel is absolutely right. One might choose to work around this the same way that American Sign Language does it.
They don’t have relative pronouns or relative clauses at all. Instead, they pair a rhetorical question with its answer. It’s nearly identical to your attempt, but there is no Sentence As Object. It’s just two sentence next to each other:
chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’? jISov.
or
chay’ Duj chenmoHlu’? mIw vISov.
This lacks the “Question As Object” illegal grammar. It’s perfectly legal, and accomplishes the same goal. It’s not like English, but it conveys the meaning. Not my preferred solution. Rhetorical questions to avoid illegal grammar seem very out of character for the language. I'm not saying it can't be done or that Klingons don't do it, mind you.
A better solution: Duj chenmoHmeH mIw vISov I know the ship-making procedure.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Re: *Duj chenmoHmeH mIw vISov* instead of *chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov* On 2/18/2019 9:55 PM, Will Martin wrote:
On second look, your suggestion is a jewel. It is grammatically ambiguous, but both interpretations have the same meaning.
The {-meH} clause can apply to either the object or the main verb. Either you know the ship building method, or, for the purpose of building a ship, you know a method.
Beautiful.
It's really just the standard way of recasting a so-called "question as object." Find a way to translate the English part with the relative pronoun into a Klingon noun phrase. I'm not going to take credit for anything special here. *ta'lIj meq vISov*/I know why you did that/ *SeSamIy taw pawmeH mIw qaja'laH*/I can tell you how to get to Sesame Street /*Qang Hegh poH vISov*/I know when the chancellor died /*DaqlIj vISov*/I know where you are /*Qu'lIj vISov*/I know what your job is/ // -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Good discussion on this one. I’d like to back up a step, and instead of focusing on which of two ways to use a specific grammatical tool, perhaps I could suggest that you approach your intended meaning via completely different grammar. When I try to understand what you are trying to say, I keep preferring: vIghro’lIj vIje’be’chugh, qatlh choQaHQo’? It just seems simpler and clearer. I agree with SuStel that neither of your versions win anything in style points. I think you are trying to do the right thing with the wrong tool. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 9:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Seemingly, this is a rather simple thing to be confused about.
Unfortunately though, I *am* confused about it, so I need to ask..
In english/greek we can say:
"Why in order for you to help me, I need to feed your cat ?" or "In order for you to help me, why do I need to feed your cat ?
When it comes to klingon, which of the following is the correct choice ?
{qatlh choQaHmeH vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?} {choQaHmeH qatlh vIghro'lIj vIje'nIS ?}
~mayqel *capricorn* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
Jeffrey Clark -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel -
Will Martin