tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 26 05:34:10 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



ja' Qang qu'wI':

> On Nov 25, 2007 10:11 PM, Alan Anderson <[email protected]>  
> wrote:
>> It's attached to your post because it's a response to the question
>> you asked in it.
>
> In actuality it isn't.

jImIS qoj bImIS.  jImISbe' jIH 'e' vIQub.  bIghelta'.  jIjangta'.
mu'mey DaparHa'bogh bIHbe'ba' mu'meywIj'e', 'ach nIjangbej.

> ... You made a deduction about my motivations
> for asking the questions I asked, and that deduction is erroneous.

DaH bImISbej.  ram ngoQmey.  pagh vIwuq.  bIghelta'.  jIjangta'.

> bIQ ngaS HIvje'lIJ.  You took the erroneous deduction entirely for
> granted and posted a recommendation derived from that deduction that
> asserts the falsehood implicitly in a way that prevents easy
> correction.

bIghelta': "Any thoughts?"  jIjangta':  "I think..."
qechmeywIj'e' vIQub.  ngoDvam DalughmoHlaH 'e' vIHon.

> Correcting a leading question fallacy can be quite difficult due to
> the emotional nature of human reasoning...

qayajlaHbe'.  tlhochchuq "emotional nature" "reasoning" je.
ghaytan pImqu' ngoQlIj ngoQwIj, vaj mangachchugh qagh wIHoH.

[I read your next few paragraphs carefully, but I kept getting lost  
in what seems to be perfectly valid yet oddly twisting grammar.   
While I don't doubt that they accurately state what you intended, I  
still don't understand what they mean, so I cannot reply to them.  I  
certainly do not agree with your characterization of my thoughts as a  
"useless, irrelevant response" -- contrariwise, I believe it was a  
perfectly reasonable response to the question I thought you were  
asking.  Since we're apparently starting with different definitions  
of "relevant" and/or "response", I don't think any discussion will be  
productive.]

> Here is a small set of answers, for comparison, that I would have been
> quite pleased with:
>
> "Yes, that's right, I checked and there doesn't appear to be that form
> in the canon"

jangbe'.  Qochbe' neH.

> "I checked further, and found a canon example"

mujba'.

> "There doesn't appear to be any canon, and I'm not sure how the rule
> that I am suggesting would apply.  We don't know"

jangbe'.  pagh jatlh.

> "I've thought about that, and here is my idea [insert brilliant  
> insight here]"
>
> "I've thought about that, and here is my idea [insert not-so-brilliant
> insight here]"

qechmeywIj vInobta'qu'.

> "my instinct would be..."

chay' pIm QavwI' "I think..."?

> The question(s) that I asked have direct bearing on something that I
> happen to be working on.  I already know how I would phrase the
> questions, because I already phrased them.

vaj qatlh bIghelnISpu'?  jInmollIj bopbe'mo' ghelpu'ghachlIj,  
nIqeSchu'be' jangpu'ghachmaj.

If you want comments that are relevant to what you're working on,  
post it.  Without enough context, any answers you receive will be  
uncertainly applicable.

> I'm obviously implicitly
> using the permanency/transience idea.  However, I believe that Voragh
> has posted enough thoughts and info to call that idea into question,
> at least sufficiently so to stand back and reconsider how I would like
> to approach this.

1) I pointed out the examples that "call that idea into question" in  
the same post that I put forth my initial observation of the apparent  
pattern.

2) Most of Voragh's additional examples did not actually address the  
idea.

> ... I simply
> do not want individuals to be concerned with how I (- or anyone else,
> for that matter -) am using the information, thoughts, ideas, and
> insights supplied in the way in which you appear to have been
> concerned, for the reasons stated.

I'm not sure what the last part of this sentence means.  However, I  
will continue to ask for context when someone wants to know how to  
translate a word or phrase.  I won't apologize for that.

-- ghunchu'wI'





Back to archive top level