[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