[Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments

[David Trimboli]

I don't want a napkin that Okrand nods at to be thought of as carefully considered grammar. Do you think he even considered whether Qoch taking an object conflicts with its TKD translation?

-----Original Message-----
From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com>
Sent: ‎9/‎6/‎2013 6:50 PM
To: "David Trimboli" <david at trimboli.name>
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story - Out of order installments

lo'pu'be' 'ach lajpu'.


De'vID said 'Not strictly canon: but at the 2011 qepHom in Saarbrücken, MO accepted
loghaD's {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} to mean "we agree to disagree".'


Doesn't that make it canon?


~'eD



On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:32 PM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:

On 9/6/2013 9:38 AM, André Müller wrote:

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


nuqDaq mu'tlheghvam lo'pu' Okrand?

-- 
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol






-- 
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/20130906/591d05ac/attachment.html>