tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 13 11:18:00 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op

Okay, let's look at the revised rules for {Hoch}, {HochHom}, and {'op}.  
Remember, some of this ('op!) is just speculation, but it's looking pretty 
attractive to me right now.

There are more examples of {Hoch} as we understand it from TKW and HolQeD 5:2, 
p. 11.  On KGT pp. 108-110 we see a few examples of the {Hoch} we all know and 
love.  It acts just like a number when it precedes a noun, that number being 
"all."

People have often used the verb {naQ} "be full, whole, entire" to express 
concepts like "the whole pie" (See Krankor, HolQeD 5:2, p. 3).  Indeed, this 
seemed to be the thing to do, as {Hoch chab} meant "every pie," and not "all 
of a single pie."  Occasionally, this verb has rubbed me the wrong way.  It 
seems to make perfect sense, but the idea of eating a "pie which is 
full/whole/entire" has always made me wonder: are we really trying to talk 
about the state of the pie, or the amount which we eat?  Supposing we bake a 
pie, and no one has eaten it yet.  This is a {chab naQ}.  Now, if I bite into 
it, I have begun to eat a {chab naQ}.  After the first bite, it's not {naQ} 
anymore.

This is an extremely narrow interpretation of {naQ}, and I've never really 
worried to much about it.  However, with a new sentence on KGT p. 155, I'm 
beginning to think that I was right all along.

nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'
All the fuel has been consumed.

({natlh} "use up, consume, expend")

Here, {Hoch} *follows* the noun!  The only other time we've seen anything like 
this is on SkyBox card S15 in the difficult to understand phrase

qItI'nga' Duj tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH.  
The K'Tinga-Class remained in use for most of the 23rd century.

It would seem that when talking about a *quantifiable* noun, a noun which 
describes a plurality of things, {Hoch} will come before it and act as a 
number.  {Hoch chab} "every pie"; {Hoch chabmey} "all of the pies."  When 
talking about a noun which describes a portion of just one thing, {Hoch} will 
follow the noun and act more like an adjectival verb (though it is not one).  
{chab Hoch} "all of the pie."  This explains the apparently backwards use of 
{HochHom} in the SkyBox card; it's describing "almost all" of the 23rd 
century, a portion of the 23rd century.

Furthermore, {HochHom} itself has been nicely defined in the KGT wordlist: 
"most, greater part (n)."  So has {'op}, that word which we weren't quite sure 
about: "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity (n)."  My guess, completely 
unsupported by any canon examples, is that both of these words work exactly 
like {Hoch}.  They are all quantity nouns.  So, we get {HochHom chab} "almost 
every pie," {HochHom chabmey} "almost all of the pies"; {'op chab} "some of 
the pies," {'op chabmey} "some of the pies."  (I can't think of an appropriate 
way to express the difference between {'op chab} and {'op chabmey} in English! 
 Perhaps {'op chab} could be "each of some of the pies.")  We also get {chab 
'op} "some of the pie} and {chab HochHom} "most of the pie."  (There's no 
telling if there's a difference between {chab 'op} and {chabmey 'op}, or even 
if it's allowed.)

Finally, I'd like to consider another quantity word which has plagued us with 
questions: {bID}.  How is it used?  We've never been able to resolve that 
question.  Wouldn't it be fantastic if it acted just like the other quantity 
nouns?  {bID chab} "half of the pies," {bID chabmey} "half of the pies" (the 
English translation of which has the same problems as {'op}); {chab bID} "half 
of the pie."

Heh . . . I wonder if Klingons ever break the rules like they do with 
{Hochlogh}, to say {bIDlogh} "half of the time" . . .

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97617.4

Back to archive top level