[97133] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Fri Sep 6 09:12:13 2013
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 09:11:54 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1dvbMzkKEwvCiavZwB5kTAD1Aho7FzO-Gn6fvwfZyGVzw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 9/6/2013 2:33 AM, Bellerophon, modeler wrote:
> Might {jIQoch(be')} be uncanonical usage?
lo'pu''a' Okrand?
tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom chutmey pabba' 'ach lo'pu' Okrand 'e' vISovbe'.
> It takes two (or more) to (dis)agree. I can't imagine MO would have
> had a problem with {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} as it translates neatly as
> "We agree that we disagree."
I'm not convinced {Qoch} can even take an object. *{ngoDvetlh vIQoch} "I
disagree with that fact"? Meh.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
