tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 06 06:12:07 2013
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments
On 9/6/2013 2:33 AM, Bellerophon, modeler wrote:
Might {jIQoch(be')} be uncanonical usage?
lo'pu''a' Okrand?
tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom chutmey pabba' 'ach lo'pu' Okrand 'e' vISovbe'.
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."
I'm not convinced {Qoch} can even take an object. *{ngoDvetlh vIQoch} "I
disagree with that fact"? Meh.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol