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

[Russ Perry Jr]

The HolQeD issues are no longer in print, but aren't electronic versions of them available?

For that matter, is the digital version still being produced?

Russ

> On Feb 20, 2016, at 11:03 AM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol