[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: meq

[mayql qunenoS]

De'vID
> Instead of citing {boQwI'}, I'd rather you cited the reference that it
> links to, namely, HolQeD 13.1.

If I had HQ, I would be more than happy to quote it directly ;
unfortunately and since not only I don't have it, but as it seems I'll
never do, I have no other choice except not to quote it directly.

If I wrote <HQ says..> , someone could say <how do you know since you
don't have it ?> , so I would have again to say <because boQwI' says
that HQ says..>.

We're missing the point here..

I couldn't have known of {...law' ...law'} unless sometime way back
-by sheer luck- I hadn't happened to come across that topic in boQwI'.
'arHa' didn't know either..

So, I guess the moral of this thread is simple, and it goes like this :

Those who were lucky enough to study klingon, while HolQeD was
available are lucky ; The rest are f**** !!! Sorry for using the f
word, but that's just how it is. They aren't just at a disadvantage ;
they aren't just at a tight spot ; they aren't just in more difficult
situation.. Oh no.. T-h-e-y  a-r-e  f**** !!!

Of course I realize that for a billion reasons, HQ cannot be made
available. I respect that ; however this does not change the fact that
people like me, people who want to learn and are unable to find HQ are
at a severe handicap.

Sorry for putting it this way, but as a beginner who wants to learn,
tries to learn and sees at the same time that there is knowledge he
cannot access, that's just the way I feel.

cpt qunnoq
lurSa' be'etor je Sutuj jay' !

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:28 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 2/20/2016 9:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
>>
>> mayql qunenoS:
>>>
>>> Yes, it was intentional.. Do you have boQwI' ? If yes, then type at
>>> the search bar <... X law' ... X puS>, and then scroll down and read
>>> the comments.
>>
>>
>> Instead of citing {boQwI'}, I'd rather you cited the reference that it
>> links to, namely, HolQeD 13.1.
>>
>> mayql qunenoS:
>>>
>>> <...to say that something is as X as something else, law' is used with
>>> law' (if the quality or its possession is considered positive)...>
>>
>>
>> SuStel:
>>>
>>> This is flat-out wrong. There is no such rule. Don't use boQwI'!
>>
>>
>> The comment in {boQwI'} summarises the rule given in HolQeD 13.1,
>> which says this:
>> <If the quality being discussed is the same for both A and B, that is,
>> if A and B are the same as far as Q goes, there are a number of
>> options... If the quality being discussed is a positive one, or if
>> having the quality is a positive attribute, another (similar)
>> construction may be used: A Q {law'} B Q {law'}.>
>>
>> In what sense is the summary "flat-out wrong"?
>>
>
> In the sense of my not knowing about that HolQeD article, of course.
>
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol