tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 25 22:56:40 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nger tobHa'meH (was Re: KLBC: Qov qeqmeH mu'tlheghmey)
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nger tobHa'meH (was Re: KLBC: Qov qeqmeH mu'tlheghmey)
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:56:06 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: Your message of Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:08:55 -0500
ja' HomDoq:
>now that I've written this, I realize, I could have explained it
>without physics :)
>
>{tob} = result of test is without doubt
>{Daj} = result of test may be wrong
I'd put it more strongly: {tob} gives an answer. {Daj} does not.
>now, with respect to {nger tobHa'}, I really don't know what
>the logical "opposite" of {tob} is, given the sense I ascribe it
>(see above).
I treat things as if {tob} meant something like "ascertain the validity
of", making {tobHa'} something like "ascertain the invalidity of".
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh