[Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments

[David Trimboli]

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/