[Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments

[André Müller]

As far as my notes are concerned, the only canonical example really is
{maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'.} (We agree to disagree.)

That means that {Qoch(be')} might at least be a labile verb, which can have
an object, but doesn't have to (as common in Klingon). The object of
{Qochbe'} here is {'e'}, so it seems logical that one can indeed agree or
disagree with a fact or a statement or an idea. I don't see a reason why it
shouldn't.


2013/9/6 David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name>

> 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
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/**listinfo/tlhingan-hol<http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20130906/b746448a/attachment.html>