[110033] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Don't they have jay' arrows ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Wed Jul 19 14:27:04 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:26:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1cCngwzN5ddu09ue5zQtcjET6VcYxw5KQHntuP67+_Y6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
On Jul 19, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think I was pretty clear when I said, "If the play is from before {cha} and {pu'} had their modern meanings."
ngerlIj tobHa'chu'DI' vay', bIlujbe'. ghurmo' SovlIj bIQaplaw'.
The reply was equally clear: it is not from such ancient times. Shouldn't you be thanking him for sharing that knowledge, rather than acting annoyed at having received more information?
> Or are we not allowed to speculate?
qay'be'. yISIv. yIghel. 'a bImujchugh, yIqejQo'. De' lI' yIlaj. yIghoj.
Speculation is okay when it's about something we don't know. That's not the case here, and the appropriate response to finding that out ought to be a positive one, not a defensive one. Continuing to wonder about the truth of something we know to be false won't help anyone understand things better.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
