tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 16 05:32:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Interesting constuct...
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> ~mark writes:
> >...Why not use -logh on pagh, anyway?
>
> Looks good to me, but it gives me a strange idea. Don't take this idea
> too seriously, but if the usage of {Hoch} before a noun is acceptable,
> perhaps we can try {*Hochlogh} to imply "every single time" (a slightly
> different shade of meaning from {reH} "always").
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
You're right. I won't take this idea seriously at all, since
{-logh} is a suffix for number words, which are chuvmey, which
can, at times, act as nouns, while {Hoch} is a noun at all
times and not chuvmey at all and not a number word. I also
think that using {Hoch} before another noun is one of the most
perverse ideas Prochel ever came up with. The only time it
makes sense to me is when it is a possessive, meaning
"everybody's", as in:
Hoch poH lo'Ha'taH pIn'a'.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |