tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 19 17:06:29 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1313798682; bh=5oFNiD1kACvj2EkgvZJu2JlK911P8XuoOpeQvF6nv3E=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=WNGZFlYnVWpPXYicHM5QRreq4uR+Pbj8IlYoOIxl20QJhWSaNfLXKbqn+fAdDgt5bwYbSawQIYIwgXCpNCVf8eu+TeFU40JKB7m3qUldkfCp/dybDbCxtN2AQfPLxUvb8frjYyg825B5z6jtXrUu+kfJhuV8Rzne2xpLjdUnM24=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=wY4LkagUvJkNqyzNwm6IgGnqwIM/AZ+7OQrJwS8eGdAUsiMo8ypXzlg0lfmIWv8pd4FDEwR9P4iMBiequslcgrhacV8YhwHSQN8eMwiNDoD4Z1CbJTTQIbeK3pAuPGBdoAbVWlzvb6ZwTzkOln+E7GZ7JI2HvGtleSn6VA6gPxQ=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
"one at a time"? "one after the other"?
-- ter'eS
--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Felix Malmenbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Felix Malmenbeck <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 5:36 PM
> If I'm interpreting ngIq correctly,
> then here's one useful distinction between Hoch and ngIq:
>
> Hoch mu'mey vIyajbe'. ("I do not understand the group of
> words in its entirety.")
> = mu'mey vIyajbe'bogh tu'lu'.
> = There exist words [within the scope of this conversation]
> that I do not understand.
>
> ngIq mu'mey vIyajbe'. ("I non-understand every individual
> word of this group.")
> = mu'mey vIyajbogh tu'lu'be'.
> = There are no words [within the scope of this
> conversation] that I understand.
>
> SuQoch'a'.
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected]
> [[email protected]]
> on behalf of Terrence Donnelly [[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 18:40
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
>
> I understood it as "sole, single, only"
>
> -- ter'eS
>
> --- On Fri, 8/19/11, Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
> > To: "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>
> > Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 11:18 AM
> > jIyajbe' jIH je. <<
> > majority?, nearly all?>> 'oS mu' 'e' vIQub.
> > (Although how {ngIq} would differ from {HochHom}
> "most,
> > greater part" isn't clear.)
> >
> > --
> > Voragh
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: SuStel
> > >>
> > >> 'eybe'bogh mu'tlheghmeylIj vIyajbe'.
> yIQIjchu'.
> > "Current, not previous (n)"?
> > >>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
> > >
> > > ghe'naQ <'u'> bom mu'mey DIlaD 'ej DIchov.
> > > ghItlhDaq 'op mu'mey DISovpu'be'bogh DItu'.
> > > Soch mu' ghaj tetlh vIgherbogh.
> > > naDev wa' DIp vImuch: <ngIq>
> > >
> > > Qatlh mu'vam. loQ <Hoch> rur.
> > > cha' lo' chovnatlh DIlegh.
> > >
> > > wa' Doch nungchugh, le'chu' Dochvetlh. rurbogh
> latlh
> > tu'lu'be'.
> > > <nqIq voDleH wItoy'.>
> > > wa' voDleH neH tu'lu'. ghaH wItoy'.
> > >
> > > Doch law' nungchugh, ghu' rap SIQ Hoch Doch, pagh
> ta'
> > rap ta' Hoch Doch,
> > > 'ach quqbe'.
> > > le' Hoch Doch. SIQ/vang wa' ghIq SIQ/vang latlh
> ghIq
> > SIQ/vang latlh...
> > > <ngIq paqmey vIlaD.>
> > > paq wa'DIch vIlaD. vIlaDta'DI', paq veb vIlaD.
> tagha'
> > paq Qav vIlaD. reH wa'
> > > paq neH vIlaDlI'.
> > > <lomDaq tuy' ngIq
> > SuvwI'pu'.>
> > > tlheghDaq Qam SuvwI'pu'. Duv SuvwI' wa'DIch 'ej
> tuy'.
> > mej. Duv SuvwI' veD
> > > 'ej tuy'. mej. not tuy' cha' SuvwI'pu' quq.
> > >
> > > mobchugh <ngIq>, wa' le'chu'wI' 'oS 'e'
> vIloy,
> > 'ach DIch vIghajlaHbe'.
> > >
> > > -- ghunchu'wI'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}