tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 19 12:42:22 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:41:35 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/19/1999 6:53:12 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << Have I helped you on to square two now?
> >>
>
> ghobe'
>
> Now you are wrong regarding {Hoch}, too. {Hoch} refers to "all" the elements
> of a set.
>From what we can tell from Okrand's usage and pronouncements,
{Hoch} preceeding a plural noun describes all members of the
set. {Hoch} preceeding a singular noun describes each member of
a set. {Hoch} following a noun refers to 100% of that noun. Your
description, while declarative wasn't very complete.
> {HochHom} refers to "some" of the elements of a set.
I'm pretty sure it refers to "most" of the elements of a set. We
have the word {'op} to refer to "some" of the elements of a set.
> {naQ} refers
> to "all" of any one element (entity).
So far as I can tell, the concept of {naQ} is likely a little
more complex than that. It seems to refer to "whole, entire",
perhaps in the sense of "not lacking completion". The rest of
these words have been nouns, while {naQ} is a verb. When I try
to translate {naQ roj}, I don't use the word "all", and I'm not
exactly talking about all elements of the entity of peace.
Meanwhile, I do believe that {naQ roj} is a valid sentence. "The
peace is complete." The verb is functioning toward a meaning
that {Hoch} could not perform.
It's just my opinion, though.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh