<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/16/2012 10:30 AM, Rohan Fenwick -
QeS 'utlh wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:BAY166-W10990797E2460140D03FC3AA700@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">
ghItlhpu' quljIb, jatlh:<br>
> I applaud this. However I still maintain that <<Doq
'ej Hurgh>> is a <br>
<div>> better rendering of "be brown." I might use
<<Doq 'ej wovbe'>>, but to <br>
> describe things that are "light brown." (Umber vs.
sienna.)<br>
<br>
Something that is wovbe' can also be Hurgh. I'd see Doq 'ej
Hurgh as a subset of Doq 'ej wovbe'.</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
jIjatlh:<br>
<br>
<<Doq 'ej Hurgh>> Hurgh law', <<Doq 'ej wovbe'
Hurgh puS.<br>
</body>
</html>