tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 05 23:33:29 2013
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments
- From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 02:33:10 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=g7HjzPkvsWuYvSx2bqwdsJvB15zlR9KJvcYPhoapEck=; b=QYvTviHuanxZFnVV1qEF/0Ef0THRoBs5nnxezUhJHRqC1PglDF/80NfzIuugOnWHXU uM3xFBP+PzRomdFPz2F4isUXDjvhz5RyOBdpDUFXyKy5tgJiU8vMok8E8JAfRAsbglqE KPO40Y8Vu6g2G6e2KgL49NhvkSfryGafLeFUaXfUgsemCa0b/TCFTlHdSyXXwvuW41J1 9BwoQH8wkWyPDwqDsyX/++mCbx2Hnhm0hDBGAsuToO4byP6RQ1vTX70bvRHMTUxe/37k KXOpJPNwwUMY7yabeksbH+F+5blPskx90Ip9xbErdZuTsmU0+kMUpXVBIk/ruBbiX7Fn jKlg==
- In-reply-to: <CA+7zAmM6ZKDnMqeuQ51iWHa4nE24=0Kk84vb0jhkNE+5eXr+1g@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/>
- List-id: <tlhingan-hol.kli.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CABSTb1f-n0R-7K1C=5B6L4X6rU4mWxcry3v-W7MpBq43VfiRqg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+7zAmM6ZKDnMqeuQ51iWHa4nE24=0Kk84vb0jhkNE+5eXr+1g@mail.gmail.com>
<div dir="ltr"><div>Oh, yeah, same target or scattered targets, from KGT.</div><div><br></div><div>Might {jIQoch(be')} be uncanonical usage? It takes two (or more) to (dis)agree. I can't imagine MO would have had a problem with {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} as it translates neatly as "We agree that we disagree."</div>
<div><br></div><div>How does one use {Qoch(be')} to mean to disagree with something rather than with someone? (Though the {DoS qIp} idiom could be expanded to something like {?chaq qechvam DaHar 'ach DoS pIm vIqIp} (or {qechvetlh}, to distance oneself from the idea?) )</div>
<div><br></div><div>~'eD</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:33 AM, De'vID <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Bellerophon, modeler<br>
<<a href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br>
> BTW: Any canon on use of Qoch(be')? As in "I agree with Tim" or "with that<br>
> statement (or plan, idea, etc)."<br>
<br>
The canonical way to express (dis)agreement is with the {DoS qIp}<br>
idioms: {cha' DoS DIqIp}, {wa' DoSmey wIqIp}.<br>
<br>
Not strictly canon: but at the 2011 qepHom in Saarbrücken, MO accepted<br>
loghaD's {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} to mean "we agree to disagree".<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
De'vID<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>My modeling blog: <a href="http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/"; target="_blank">http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/</a><br>My other modeling blog: <a href="http://bellerophon.blog.com/"; target="_blank">http://bellerophon.blog.com/</a><br>
</div>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol