tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 27 08:53:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'ul
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: 'ul
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:26:03 -0500
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>I'm not sure the meaning is really as different as you suspect.
>tlhIngan naQ yIqel. naQbogh tlhIngan yIqel. If you consider a
>Klingon who is whole, you consider a whole Klingon. If you
>consider a year which is whole, you consider a whole year. See?
Yes, and this is one reason why {naQ} has been used so frequently. However,
consider the canon from which this idea comes:
tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH.
[they] remained in use for most of the 23rd century. (Skybox S15)
nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'
All the fuel has been consumed. (KGT 155)
The first shows {HochHom} modifying a specific, single {poH} into "most of"
the single {poH}. My guess is that this may be extended:
poH
period of time
poH HochHom
most of a period of time
poH Hoch
all of a period of time
poH 'op
some of a period of time
poH bID
half of a period of time
{poH naQ}, while similar to {poH Hoch}, is describing the state of wholeness
of {poH}, not a quantity of {poH}. In most cases, the result will be
similar, probably not much to worry about. If {chab Hoch vISop} "I eat all
of the pie," you can make the case of {chab naQ vISop}: in order to eat all
of a pie, the pie has to be whole to begin with anyway. I find this
unsatisfactory, especially with the evidence we have so far. Besides, {naQ}
can't do "almost," "some," and "half."
SuStel
Stardate 98159.2