[97147] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Fri Sep 6 19:24:17 2013
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1cVbKPMdByCrUCpZVetfJgrAFWA0T63K1tA7pESOOjZxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 01:23:42 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5206415223365306116==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c365b64cad7204e5bf5430
--001a11c365b64cad7204e5bf5430
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2013/9/6 Bellerophon, modeler <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
> ...
> I also expect to see frequent use of {-chuq} as in {Qochchuq tlhIH} or
> {maQochbe'chuq} for internal (dis)agreement in a group.
>
>>
Those phrases might be possible, we don't know. But with the current
knowledge, I'd interpret them as "You are in disagreement over each other."
and "We are in agreement over one another.", respectively. So not just
having different or identical opinions, but acknowledging or doubting each
others identity or existence.
Oh, and I agree with you that "disagree with a fact" is semantically (or
philosophically) a bit strange. But for me {qechlIj vIQoch.} or {nabmaj
luQochbe'.} sound fine to me. {ngoDqoq vIQoch.} sounds much better, and
it's a good opportunity to use {-qoq}, as well.
--001a11c365b64cad7204e5bf5430
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2013=
/9/6 Bellerophon, modeler <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:belleroph=
on.modeler@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com</a>&g=
t;</span><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">...<br><div><div><div>I als=
o expect to see frequent use of {-chuq} as in {Qochchuq tlhIH} or {maQochbe=
'chuq} for internal (dis)agreement in a group.</div>
</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><div class=3D"h5"><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><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;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockqu=
ote><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=C2=A0<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">T=
hose phrases might be possible, we don't know. But with the current kno=
wledge, I'd interpret them as "You are in disagreement over each o=
ther." and "We are in agreement over one another.", respecti=
vely. So not just having different or identical opinions, but acknowledging=
or doubting each others identity or existence.<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Oh, and I agree with you that "disagr=
ee with a fact" is semantically (or philosophically) a bit strange. Bu=
t for me {qechlIj vIQoch.} or {nabmaj luQochbe'.} sound fine to me. {ng=
oDqoq vIQoch.} sounds much better, and it's a good opportunity to use {=
-qoq}, as well.<br>
</div></div></div></div>
--001a11c365b64cad7204e5bf5430--
--===============5206415223365306116==
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
--===============5206415223365306116==--
