At the qepHom ask about the vonlu'
Another thing which perhaps needs clarification is the vonlu'. A little bird told me, that at the kgt it is written {bIvonlu'pu'} instead of {Davonlu'pu'}. So, this raises the question, whether the {-lu'} shoved up the {von} of {vonlu'} is the indefinite subject suffix which we all know and love, or whether it is just a {lu'} which happened to cross the street while this word was being created. So, could someone write {vonlu'lu'} for "someone has failed utterly " ? And if it is indeed the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, then for "someone again failed utterly", do we write {vonqa'lu'} or {vonlu'qa'} ? Because if we write {vonqa'lu'} how would someone be able to differentiate from the {vonqa'lu'} which would mean "someone trapped him/them again" ? I'm tired of having to "throw the cards" (greek expression meaning "trying to guess"), in order to clarify grammar which should have been already clarified at numerous qep'a'mey and qepHommey so far (as is the case with {ngIq}, the verb prefix after a {joq}, etc etc etc..). After all I've have come to terms, that probably there will never be any answers. vaj chaq vIghelqanglu': qatlh QInvam DaghItlh ? 'ej ghIq bIjang: DaH, naDev Dalmo', 'ej Dochmey qaq vIqaSmoHlaHbogh vIghajbe'.. ~ nIghma'
(KGT 165-66): The verb von, usually translated as trap, entrap, means "put (someone) in a position from which there is no escape." For a Klingon, to be in such a position, to be unable to fight back, is most dishonorable, especially since he or she is likely to be viewed in a helpless state. Thus, it is a sign of utter failure. […] The slang expression is used in such constructions as bIvonlu'pu' ("You have failed completely"; literally, "You have been trapped"). In standard Klingon, the same idea may be expressed by saying lujbej (certainly fail), lujchu' (fail perfectly), or lujqu' (really fail), all based on luj (fail). Note that luj is also used to mean lose (as in "lose at a game"). To say "I lose" is jIluj; to say "I lose in a big way" is jIlujqu' or jIlujchu'. The slang term vonlu' is not used in reference to games. It means "perform most inadequately, ineffectually, unsuccessfully" and is applied to one's performance as a warrior, tactician, political usurper, and the like. --Voragh From: mayqel qunenoS Another thing which perhaps needs clarification is the vonlu'. A little bird told me, that at the kgt it is written {bIvonlu'pu'} instead of {Davonlu'pu'}. So, this raises the question, whether the {-lu'} shoved up the {von} of {vonlu'} is the indefinite subject suffix which we all know and love, or whether it is just a {lu'} which happened to cross the street while this word was being created. So, could someone write {vonlu'lu'} for "someone has failed utterly " ? And if it is indeed the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, then for "someone again failed utterly", do we write {vonqa'lu'} or {vonlu'qa'} ? Because if we write {vonqa'lu'} how would someone be able to differentiate from the {vonqa'lu'} which would mean "someone trapped him/them again" ? I'm tired of having to "throw the cards" (greek expression meaning "trying to guess"), in order to clarify grammar which should have been already clarified at numerous qep'a'mey and qepHommey so far (as is the case with {ngIq}, the verb prefix after a {joq}, etc etc etc..). ~ nIghma'
kgt:
The slang expression is used in such constructions as *bIvonlu'pu' *("You have failed completely"; literally, "You have been trapped").
Here is the problem; why {bIvonlu'pu'} and not {Davonlu'pu'} ? ~ nIghma' On Oct 27, 2017 7:05 PM, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
(KGT 165-66): The verb *von*, usually translated as * trap, entrap*, means "put (someone) in a position from which there is no escape." For a Klingon, to be in such a position, to be unable to fight back, is most dishonorable, especially since he or she is likely to be viewed in a helpless state. Thus, it is a sign of utter failure. […] The slang expression is used in such constructions as *bIvonlu'pu' *("You have failed completely"; literally, "You have been trapped"). In standard Klingon, the same idea may be expressed by saying *lujbej *(*certainly fail*), *lujchu' *(*fail perfectly*), or *lujqu' *(*really fail*), all based on *luj *(*fail*). Note that *luj *is also used to mean *lose* (as in "lose at a game"). To say "I lose" is *jIluj*; to say "I lose in a big way" is *jIlujqu' *or *jIlujchu'*. The slang term *vonlu' *is not used in reference to games. It means "perform most inadequately, ineffectually, unsuccessfully" and is applied to one's performance as a warrior, tactician, political usurper, and the like.
--Voragh
*From:* mayqel qunenoS
Another thing which perhaps needs clarification is the vonlu'.
A little bird told me, that at the kgt it is written {bIvonlu'pu'} instead of {Davonlu'pu'}.
So, this raises the question, whether the {-lu'} shoved up the {von} of {vonlu'} is the indefinite subject suffix which we all know and love, or whether it is just a {lu'} which happened to cross the street while this word was being created.
So, could someone write {vonlu'lu'} for "someone has failed utterly " ?
And if it is indeed the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, then for "someone again failed utterly", do we write {vonqa'lu'} or {vonlu'qa'} ? Because if we write {vonqa'lu'} how would someone be able to differentiate from the {vonqa'lu'} which would mean "someone trapped him/them again" ?
I'm tired of having to "throw the cards" (greek expression meaning "trying to guess"), in order to clarify grammar which should have been already clarified at numerous qep'a'mey and qepHommey so far (as is the case with {ngIq}, the verb prefix after a {joq}, etc etc etc..).
~ nIghma'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/27/2017 12:17 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
kgt:
The slang expression is used in such constructions as *bIvonlu'pu' *("You have failed completely"; literally, "You have been trapped").
Here is the problem; why {bIvonlu'pu'} and not {Davonlu'pu'} ?
An error. But by all means, someone ask Okrand if it was indeed an error. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Another thing which perhaps needs clarification is the vonlu'.
A little bird told me, that at the kgt it is written {bIvonlu'pu'} instead of {Davonlu'pu'}.
So, this raises the question, whether the {-lu'} shoved up the {von} of {vonlu'} is the indefinite subject suffix which we all know and love, or whether it is just a {lu'} which happened to cross the street while this word was being created.
So, could someone write {vonlu'lu'} for "someone has failed utterly " ?
It's a slang term, so it might not obey grammar rules 100%. My guess is either it's simply a typo for *Davonlu'pu'*, or the slang meaning uses prefixes with *-lu'* in an unusual way that was unelaborated on. The literal translation of the slang term is "someone has trapped you", so it would make sense for the *-lu'* to be still considered as the suffix itself, even if they use prefixes differently with it. So I don't think it would make much sense to say *vonlu'lu'*. But it's slang anyway, so maybe the meaning would still get across even if it's not 100% grammatical. And if it is indeed the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, then for "someone
again failed utterly", do we write {vonqa'lu'} or {vonlu'qa'} ? Because if we write {vonqa'lu'} how would someone be able to differentiate from the {vonqa'lu'} which would mean "someone trapped him/them again" ?
If the *-lu'* is supposed to be the suffix and not a part of the verb, which is probably the case, then it should be *vonqa'lu'*. Context will make it clear whether someone means the literal "he/she has been entrapped again" vs. "he/she has failed utterly again" -- if the person in question is not literally in a trap of some kind, then it's probably the latter.
I'm tired of having to "throw the cards" (greek expression meaning "trying to guess"), in order to clarify grammar which should have been already clarified at numerous qep'a'mey and qepHommey so far (as is the case with {ngIq}, the verb prefix after a {joq}, etc etc etc..).
It's entirely possible these questions had simply never come up before. Most communication can be done just fine without having to get too close to unfamiliar grammatical territory. For instance, I've been fiddling around with Klingon since the late nineties, and the question of number agreement with *joq* hadn't occured to me until a year or so ago. And the stuff from the slang section of KGT doesn't come up very often; most discussion here is done in "formal" Klingon. Okrand is just one person, he can't anticipate every possible question, and it's not like we can lock him in a room and make him answer every question we've ever had. There's not many Klingonists to begin with, so it might be a while before somebody notices some issue. This is just one of the things you have to accept if you're going to study a fictional language designed by one person.
nIqolay Q:
Okrand is just one person, he can't anticipate every possible question
Yes indeed; but here we're not talking about creating new words. If that was the case, then someone could say -and be correct-, that it isn't humanly possible for someone to create in an artificial language, the entire vocabulary of a real language. But the problem here is, that we're talking abour grammar. And the questions aren't that many. How long has the {ngIq} remained unclarified ? Why ? Is there a reason ? Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ? How many questions would there be ? a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ? ~ nIghma' On Oct 27, 2017 7:30 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Another thing which perhaps needs clarification is the vonlu'.
A little bird told me, that at the kgt it is written {bIvonlu'pu'} instead of {Davonlu'pu'}.
So, this raises the question, whether the {-lu'} shoved up the {von} of {vonlu'} is the indefinite subject suffix which we all know and love, or whether it is just a {lu'} which happened to cross the street while this word was being created.
So, could someone write {vonlu'lu'} for "someone has failed utterly " ?
It's a slang term, so it might not obey grammar rules 100%. My guess is either it's simply a typo for *Davonlu'pu'*, or the slang meaning uses prefixes with *-lu'* in an unusual way that was unelaborated on. The literal translation of the slang term is "someone has trapped you", so it would make sense for the *-lu'* to be still considered as the suffix itself, even if they use prefixes differently with it. So I don't think it would make much sense to say *vonlu'lu'*. But it's slang anyway, so maybe the meaning would still get across even if it's not 100% grammatical.
And if it is indeed the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, then for
"someone again failed utterly", do we write {vonqa'lu'} or {vonlu'qa'} ? Because if we write {vonqa'lu'} how would someone be able to differentiate from the {vonqa'lu'} which would mean "someone trapped him/them again" ?
If the *-lu'* is supposed to be the suffix and not a part of the verb, which is probably the case, then it should be *vonqa'lu'*. Context will make it clear whether someone means the literal "he/she has been entrapped again" vs. "he/she has failed utterly again" -- if the person in question is not literally in a trap of some kind, then it's probably the latter.
I'm tired of having to "throw the cards" (greek expression meaning "trying to guess"), in order to clarify grammar which should have been already clarified at numerous qep'a'mey and qepHommey so far (as is the case with {ngIq}, the verb prefix after a {joq}, etc etc etc..).
It's entirely possible these questions had simply never come up before. Most communication can be done just fine without having to get too close to unfamiliar grammatical territory. For instance, I've been fiddling around with Klingon since the late nineties, and the question of number agreement with *joq* hadn't occured to me until a year or so ago. And the stuff from the slang section of KGT doesn't come up very often; most discussion here is done in "formal" Klingon. Okrand is just one person, he can't anticipate every possible question, and it's not like we can lock him in a room and make him answer every question we've ever had. There's not many Klingonists to begin with, so it might be a while before somebody notices some issue. This is just one of the things you have to accept if you're going to study a fictional language designed by one person.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
How long has the {ngIq} remained unclarified ? Why ? Is there a reason ?
*vIqawchu'chugh*, *ngIq* was introduced at a *qep'a'* where Okrand asked Klingonists to look over the text of the opera* 'u'* that he'd translated, and discussion of new words was done entirely in Klingon. My guess is that nobody asked Okrand for more detail because they assumed they had it figured out from the examples even without a precise English gloss. Same with the question of number agreement with conjunctions -- people probably just went with what felt right without thinking of it as something worth asking about.
Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ?
It's possible that the people who have Okrand's email address don't think the questions are that pressing. It's also possible someone's already forwarded them to Okrand and we'll get answers in November. It'd be nice to have these questions answered. But I'm not the one who has to put time and effort into answering those questions, nor am I the one who has to directly ask Okrand for his time and effort, so I'm less inclined to demand that others do those things on my behalf.
How many questions would there be ? a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ?
If I put my mind to it and I had a week to kill, I could probably come up with a hundred grammar questions. "How do we use this word" and "can we retcon this goof into grammatical Klingon" and "what is the preferred style or phrasing in this sentence" and "would this construction be interpreted the way I meant it to be interpreted" and so on.
nIqolay Q
nor am I the one who has to directly ask Okrand for his time and effort, so I'm less inclined to demand that others do those things on my behalf
I'm not demanding. I'm suggesting. This is the official mailing list of the klingon language institute. It is not some insignificant group of five individuals. It is expected that on this list, grammar questions which can't be answered through existing canon will appear. And it is expected, that these questions (or at least some of them), will be forwarded by someone to the one who can answer them. The alternative is that noone takes "the time and effort", and these questions remain unanswered.. This can happen too, but I don't think that this would help klingon to develop. I really have a hard time accepting, that in the official mailing list of the klingon language institute, the policy goes by: "don't you even think -let alone suggest- of asking 'oqranD". ~ nIghma' On Oct 29, 2017 3:44 AM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
How long has the {ngIq} remained unclarified ? Why ? Is there a reason ?
*vIqawchu'chugh*, *ngIq* was introduced at a *qep'a'* where Okrand asked Klingonists to look over the text of the opera* 'u'* that he'd translated, and discussion of new words was done entirely in Klingon. My guess is that nobody asked Okrand for more detail because they assumed they had it figured out from the examples even without a precise English gloss. Same with the question of number agreement with conjunctions -- people probably just went with what felt right without thinking of it as something worth asking about.
Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ?
It's possible that the people who have Okrand's email address don't think the questions are that pressing. It's also possible someone's already forwarded them to Okrand and we'll get answers in November. It'd be nice to have these questions answered. But I'm not the one who has to put time and effort into answering those questions, nor am I the one who has to directly ask Okrand for his time and effort, so I'm less inclined to demand that others do those things on my behalf.
How many questions would there be ? a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ?
If I put my mind to it and I had a week to kill, I could probably come up with a hundred grammar questions. "How do we use this word" and "can we retcon this goof into grammatical Klingon" and "what is the preferred style or phrasing in this sentence" and "would this construction be interpreted the way I meant it to be interpreted" and so on.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Oct 29, 2017, at 5:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I really have a hard time accepting, that in the official mailing list of the klingon language institute, the policy goes by: "don't you even think -let alone suggest- of asking 'oqranD".
I’m pretty sure you were participating here when questions like yours were collected to be collated and presented to him before the past year’s qep'a'. -- ghunchu'wI'
Am 28.10.2017 um 13:19 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ?
As you can see now, I have done that.
How many questions would there be ? a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ?
Actually, there really were lots more, and Okrand could really not answer all of them. He still is just a Human, and he is doing this - like all of us - just for fun. For his fun, and for our fun. We are lucky that he wants to do it correctly, so he takes his time to think about it. But it's not his hobby as it is ours. So he may just forget about something, or simply not find a satisfying solution. He could just say like "I don't care, just do what you want" but he prefers to keep the game going, and think like "Would a Klingon rally say that? Would it sound Klingon?". That's why it sometimes takes time or may even remain unanswered. (we have waited for the word for "bread" about ten years or even more.) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz
lieven, 'oqranD Daghelta'mo' jIbel, 'ej belbej je tlhIngan ghojwI'pu' nugh. because you have forwarded the questions to 'oqranD, I'm pleased and so is the klingon community. reH, jangDI' 'oqranD, Dub tlhIngan nugh Hoch, vabDot wa' nuvvaD neH jangDI'. always, when 'oqranD replies, the entire klingon community benefits, including when he replies for just a single person. DaH, HIyajHa'Qo'. DI'ruj vIyajlaHchu'. 'ej DI'rujvam vIyajchu'mo' -meqvammo'- reH jIqap. qap pagh net jalchugh, vaj not maghoj. don't misunderstand me, I understand perfectly the situation, and exactly because of this reason I insist. because if noone insisted, then we would never learn. ~ nI'ghma On Nov 20, 2017 4:33 PM, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 28.10.2017 um 13:19 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ?
As you can see now, I have done that.
How many questions would there be ?
a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ?
Actually, there really were lots more, and Okrand could really not answer all of them. He still is just a Human, and he is doing this - like all of us - just for fun. For his fun, and for our fun. We are lucky that he wants to do it correctly, so he takes his time to think about it. But it's not his hobby as it is ours. So he may just forget about something, or simply not find a satisfying solution. He could just say like "I don't care, just do what you want" but he prefers to keep the game going, and think like "Would a Klingon rally say that? Would it sound Klingon?". That's why it sometimes takes time or may even remain unanswered. (we have waited for the word for "bread" about ten years or even more.)
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
lieven:
it's not his hobby as it is ours.
chaq, Huj; 'a jIHvaD, hobby 'oHbe' tlhIngan Hol'e'. qaStaHvIS pa'logh, pIj jIjatlh: meq Saghmo', Hol chenmoHlu'ta'bogh vIghojnIS. Do'Ha' meqvam vIghItlhlaHbe'. anyways, wa' Doch neH vIjatlh vIneH. rut, hobby neH 'oH Hol'e' chenmoHlu'ta'bogh. ~ 'eD nI'ghma On Nov 20, 2017 4:54 PM, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven, 'oqranD Daghelta'mo' jIbel, 'ej belbej je tlhIngan ghojwI'pu' nugh.
because you have forwarded the questions to 'oqranD, I'm pleased and so is the klingon community.
reH, jangDI' 'oqranD, Dub tlhIngan nugh Hoch, vabDot wa' nuvvaD neH jangDI'.
always, when 'oqranD replies, the entire klingon community benefits, including when he replies for just a single person.
DaH, HIyajHa'Qo'. DI'ruj vIyajlaHchu'. 'ej DI'rujvam vIyajchu'mo' -meqvammo'- reH jIqap. qap pagh net jalchugh, vaj not maghoj.
don't misunderstand me, I understand perfectly the situation, and exactly because of this reason I insist.
because if noone insisted, then we would never learn.
~ nI'ghma
On Nov 20, 2017 4:33 PM, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 28.10.2017 um 13:19 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ?
As you can see now, I have done that.
How many questions would there be ?
a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ?
Actually, there really were lots more, and Okrand could really not answer all of them. He still is just a Human, and he is doing this - like all of us - just for fun. For his fun, and for our fun. We are lucky that he wants to do it correctly, so he takes his time to think about it. But it's not his hobby as it is ours. So he may just forget about something, or simply not find a satisfying solution. He could just say like "I don't care, just do what you want" but he prefers to keep the game going, and think like "Would a Klingon rally say that? Would it sound Klingon?". That's why it sometimes takes time or may even remain unanswered. (we have waited for the word for "bread" about ten years or even more.)
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
'ej rut 'oHbe'.. On Nov 20, 2017 8:26 PM, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven:
it's not his hobby as it is ours.
chaq, Huj; 'a jIHvaD, hobby 'oHbe' tlhIngan Hol'e'.
qaStaHvIS pa'logh, pIj jIjatlh: meq Saghmo', Hol chenmoHlu'ta'bogh vIghojnIS. Do'Ha' meqvam vIghItlhlaHbe'.
anyways, wa' Doch neH vIjatlh vIneH. rut, hobby neH 'oH Hol'e' chenmoHlu'ta'bogh.
~ 'eD nI'ghma
On Nov 20, 2017 4:54 PM, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven, 'oqranD Daghelta'mo' jIbel, 'ej belbej je tlhIngan ghojwI'pu' nugh.
because you have forwarded the questions to 'oqranD, I'm pleased and so is the klingon community.
reH, jangDI' 'oqranD, Dub tlhIngan nugh Hoch, vabDot wa' nuvvaD neH jangDI'.
always, when 'oqranD replies, the entire klingon community benefits, including when he replies for just a single person.
DaH, HIyajHa'Qo'. DI'ruj vIyajlaHchu'. 'ej DI'rujvam vIyajchu'mo' -meqvammo'- reH jIqap. qap pagh net jalchugh, vaj not maghoj.
don't misunderstand me, I understand perfectly the situation, and exactly because of this reason I insist.
because if noone insisted, then we would never learn.
~ nI'ghma
On Nov 20, 2017 4:33 PM, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 28.10.2017 um 13:19 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ?
As you can see now, I have done that.
How many questions would there be ?
a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ?
Actually, there really were lots more, and Okrand could really not answer all of them. He still is just a Human, and he is doing this - like all of us - just for fun. For his fun, and for our fun. We are lucky that he wants to do it correctly, so he takes his time to think about it. But it's not his hobby as it is ours. So he may just forget about something, or simply not find a satisfying solution. He could just say like "I don't care, just do what you want" but he prefers to keep the game going, and think like "Would a Klingon rally say that? Would it sound Klingon?". That's why it sometimes takes time or may even remain unanswered. (we have waited for the word for "bread" about ten years or even more.)
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (6)
-
ghunchu'wI' 'utlh -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel