[Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> Might {jIQoch(be')} be uncanonical usage?

It sems that in Klingon, one person can [dis]agree all on her/his own:

http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1996-08-06c-news.txt&get=source

==================
d'Armond -- jIQochbe'. When the dictionary lacks a word that you need (or think you need), the best approach is to think of other ways to say the same thing. This not only gets your idea across, it also helps you become more familiar with Klingon. qeS QaQ.
==================


http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1997-11-30-news.txt&get=source

==================

 Both Qochbe'nIS "he/she/they
need to not disagree" (that is, "he/she/they need to agree") and QochnISbe'
"he/she/they do not need to disagree" are acceptable Klingon formations.

==================

Also, this passage from KGT would seem to back this up:


Nonslang equivalents of {qang}, though lacking the negative connotation, are
{reH Qochbe'} ("always agree"; {reH,} "always"), {reH yeq} ("always cooperate"),
and {reH jIj} ("always be cooperative").


________________________________
From: Bellerophon, modeler [bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 08:33
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments

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<mailto:de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Bellerophon, modeler
<bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com<mailto: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/e81bfcd7/attachment.html>