[Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments

[Bellerophon, modeler]

Oh, yeah, same target or scattered targets, from KGT.

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."

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?) )

~'eD


On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:33 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Bellerophon, modeler
> <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > BTW: Any canon on use of Qoch(be')? As in "I agree with Tim" or "with
> that
> > statement (or plan, idea, etc)."
>
> The canonical way to express (dis)agreement is with the {DoS qIp}
> idioms: {cha' DoS DIqIp}, {wa' DoSmey wIqIp}.
>
> Not strictly canon: but at the 2011 qepHom in Saarbrücken, MO accepted
> loghaD's {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} to mean "we agree to disagree".
>
> --
> De'vID
>



-- 
My modeling blog:          http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog:  http://bellerophon.blog.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20130906/8bd623a8/attachment.html>