tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 06 16:23:57 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

André Müller (

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2013/9/6 Bellerophon, modeler <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href=""; target="_blank"></a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">...<br><div><div><div>I also expect to see frequent use of {-chuq} as in {Qochchuq tlhIH} or {maQochbe&#39;chuq} for internal (dis)agreement in a group.</div>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"> <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Those phrases might be possible, we don&#39;t know. But with the current knowledge, I&#39;d interpret them as &quot;You are in disagreement over each other.&quot; and &quot;We are in agreement over one another.&quot;, respectively. So not just having different or identical opinions, but acknowledging or doubting each others identity or existence.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra">Oh, and I agree with you that &quot;disagree with a fact&quot; is semantically (or philosophically) a bit strange. But for me {qechlIj vIQoch.} or {nabmaj luQochbe&#39;.} sound fine to me. {ngoDqoq vIQoch.} sounds much better, and it&#39;s a good opportunity to use {-qoq}, as well.<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list

Back to archive top level