tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 05 23:33:29 2013

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments

Bellerophon, modeler (

<div dir="ltr"><div>Oh, yeah, same target or scattered targets, from KGT.</div><div><br></div><div>Might {jIQoch(be&#39;)} be uncanonical usage? It takes two (or more) to (dis)agree. I can&#39;t imagine MO would have had a problem with {maQoch &#39;e&#39; wIQochbe&#39;} as it translates neatly as &quot;We agree that we disagree.&quot;</div>
<div><br></div><div>How does one use {Qoch(be&#39;)} to mean to disagree with something rather than with someone? (Though the {DoS qIp} idiom could be expanded to something like {?chaq qechvam DaHar &#39;ach DoS pIm vIqIp} (or {qechvetlh}, to distance oneself from the idea?) )</div>
<div><br></div><div>~&#39;eD</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:33 AM, De&#39;vID <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href=""; target="_blank"></a>&gt;</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>
&lt;<a href="";></a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; BTW: Any canon on use of Qoch(be&#39;)? As in &quot;I agree with Tim&quot; or &quot;with that<br>
&gt; statement (or plan, idea, etc).&quot;<br>
The canonical way to express (dis)agreement is with the {DoS qIp}<br>
idioms: {cha&#39; DoS DIqIp}, {wa&#39; DoSmey wIqIp}.<br>
Not strictly canon: but at the 2011 qepHom in Saarbrücken, MO accepted<br>
loghaD&#39;s {maQoch &#39;e&#39; wIQochbe&#39;} to mean &quot;we agree to disagree&quot;.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>My modeling blog:          <a href=""; target="_blank"></a><br>My other modeling blog:  <a href=""; target="_blank"></a><br>

Tlhingan-hol mailing list

Back to archive top level