[97143] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bellerophon, modeler)
Fri Sep 6 17:27:31 2013
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbWCXQS+SeoTPZ_bXdOGuJ_o3Fk0spnPsOkLYDtRbtLBqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:27:06 -0400
From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============0471345598751048557==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb048225106fc04e5bdb3d1
--047d7bb048225106fc04e5bdb3d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Disagreement with fact borders on the Orwellian. But one could disagree
about whether a purported fact is correct.
MO's appproval of {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} opens the door to the object of
{Qoch} being the (dis)agreed upon statement. lughchu' mu' lo' 'e' maqchugh
marq 'oqranD, vaj lugh lo'vam 'e' wIQochbe''a'?
I also expect to see frequent use of {-chuq} as in {Qochchuq tlhIH} or
{maQochbe'chuq} for internal (dis)agreement in a group.
Could {-chugh} mean "whether" in {?nughoStaHchugh jagh wIQochchuq}? Could
one interpret it as "If the enemy is approaching us, we disagree with one
another"? But I think one would say {nughoStaHchugh jagh maQochchuq}. (No
way to win battles, that, but common enough in war councils!)
~'eD
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller <esperantist@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
> As far as my notes are concerned, the only canonical example really is
> {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'.} (We agree to disagree.)
>
> That means that {Qoch(be')} might at least be a labile verb, which can
> have an object, but doesn't have to (as common in Klingon). The object of
> {Qochbe'} here is {'e'}, so it seems logical that one can indeed agree or
> disagree with a fact or a statement or an idea. I don't see a reason why =
it
> shouldn't.
>
>
> 2013/9/6 David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
>
>> 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<http://mail.kli.org/=
mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
--=20
My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog: http://bellerophon.blog.com/
--047d7bb048225106fc04e5bdb3d1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Disagreement with fact borders on the Orwellian. But one c=
ould disagree about whether a purported fact is correct.<div><br></div><div=
>MO's appproval of {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} opens the door to=
the object of {Qoch} being the (dis)agreed upon statement. lughchu' mu=
' lo' 'e' maqchugh marq 'oqranD, vaj lugh lo'vam &#=
39;e' wIQochbe''a'?</div>
<div><div><br><div>I also expect to see frequent use of {-chuq} as in {Qoch=
chuq tlhIH} or {maQochbe'chuq} for internal (dis)agreement in a group.<=
/div></div></div><div><br></div><div>Could {-chugh} mean "whether"=
; in {?nughoStaHchugh jagh wIQochchuq}? Could one interpret it as "If =
the enemy is approaching us, we disagree with one another"? But I thin=
k one would say {nughoStaHchugh jagh maQochchuq}. (No way to win battles, t=
hat, but common enough in war councils!)</div>
<div><br></div><div>~'eD</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller=
<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:esperantist@gmail.com" target=3D"_=
blank">esperantist@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>As far as my notes are concerned, th=
e only canonical example really is {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'.} (We =
agree to disagree.)<br>
<br></div>That means that {Qoch(be')} might at least be a labile verb, =
which can have an object, but doesn't have to (as common in Klingon). T=
he object of {Qochbe'} here is {'e'}, so it seems logical that =
one can indeed agree or disagree with a fact or a statement or an idea. I d=
on't see a reason why it shouldn't.<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2013/9/=
6 David Trimboli <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:david@trimboli.nam=
e" target=3D"_blank">david@trimboli.name</a>></span><br><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;b=
order-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"=
>
<div>On 9/6/2013 2:33 AM, Bellerophon, modeler wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">
Might {jIQoch(be')} be uncanonical usage?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
lo'pu''a' Okrand?<br>
<br>
tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom chutmey pabba' 'ach lo'pu' Okrand =
'e' vISovbe'.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">
It takes two (or more) to (dis)agree. =C2=A0I can't imagine MO would ha=
ve<br>
had a problem with {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} as it translates neat=
ly as<br>
"We agree that we disagree."<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I'm not convinced {Qoch} can even take an object. *{ngoDvetlh vIQoch} &=
quot;I disagree with that fact"? Meh.<span><font color=3D"#888888"><sp=
an><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
SuStel<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.trimboli.name/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.trimboli=
.name/</a></font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" target=3D"_blank">Tlhingan-hol@kli.=
org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a><br>
</div></div></font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" target=3D"_blank">Tlhingan-hol@kli.=
org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>My model=
ing blog:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <a href=3D"=
http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerop=
hon-modeler.blogspot.com/</a><br>My other modeling blog:=C2=A0 <a href=3D"h=
ttp://bellerophon.blog.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon.blog.com/=
</a><br>
</div></div>
--047d7bb048225106fc04e5bdb3d1--
--===============0471345598751048557==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============0471345598751048557==--
