tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 19 19:00:42 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nger tobHa'meH (was Re: KLBC: Qov qeqmeH mu'tlheghmey)
> ja' "Michael A. Stumpe" <[email protected]>:
> >teH, mI' QeD nger 'oHchugh De'Homvetlh'e'. navDaq nger DatoblaH.
> >Qulpa' Dalo'nISbe'.
> >
> >[That is true, if it is a mathematical theory. You can prove it on
> >paper. You do not need a research lab.]
>
> bIlaDHa'law'. yIqIm: jatlh Qov <tobHa'laH>. muj nger 'e' toblaHbej wa'
> ngong.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
bIlugh. jIQagh, 'ach <tobHa'> vIyajchu'be'. mu'vam mung 'oH <tob>'e'
'e' vISov, 'ach Huj mu'vam. mu'vam lo'lu'chugh, vaj lugh nger 'e'
tobta' vay'. ghIq muj nger 'e' tobta' latlh. DuHbe' ghu'vetlh. muj
wa' ngong. qItbe' mu' 'e' vItobpu''a'? loQ jIqID, 'ach Daj 'e' vIQub.
[ You are correct. I errored, but I don't perfectly understand
<tobHa'>. I know that <tob> is the origin of this word, but this word
is strange. If this word is used, then someone proved a theory correct,
then another person proved that it was wrong. This situation is not
possible. One experiment was wrong. Have I "disproven" a word? I'm
slightly joking, but I think this is interesting. ]
quS'a'Qob bu', qa'rIl puqloD