tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 19 13:32:51 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 99 16:23:19 EST
ja' peHruS:
>ghobe'
My, you *are* still stuck on square one, aren't you? I thought my pie
examples were sure to do the trick. I'll give it one more try.
>Now you are wrong regarding {Hoch}, too. {Hoch} refers to "all" the elements
>of a set. {HochHom} refers to "some" of the elements of a set.
{Hoch} indeed means "all" or "each" of a set's members, when it's used
before a noun in a counting sense. The examples on TKW pages 33, 51,
74, and 136 show us the "all" meaning, and Okrand expanded on it with
his comments in HolQeD to tell us about the "each" meaning.
{HochHom} specifically means "most, greater part". For "some" we have
the word {'op}. And again, for "some" of a set's members, we find the
word used before the noun, on Skybox card S7.
But the {nIn Hoch} and Skybox S15 {HochHom} examples place the words
*after* a noun. Significantly, in both cases the noun in question is
a *single* thing, not a set of things. This is definitely not a
"count" usage. It can meaningfully be interpreted only as something
like a "fraction" usage.
>{naQ} refers to "all" of any one element (entity).
How can you keep thinking that after taking a careful look at its
definition? Let me repeat what TKD has to say about it:
| naQ - be full, whole, entire (v) [TKD Addendum E-K]
| naQ - be full, whole, entire, complete (v) [TKD Addendum K-E]
Let me also repeat my observation from last time:
| {naQ} does not mean "be all of" or "be the entirety of".
By the way, look closely -- I used the word "entirety", not "entity".
{naQ} is a verb. "All" of something is a noun. That in itself should
be a sufficient explanation of why {chab naQ} can't be taken to mean
"all of the pie". Piled on top of the other explanations, arguments,
and examples which I have tried to give clearly to the best of my
ability, it should be capable of demolishing any remaining shred of
belief that {naQ} refers to "all of" something.
{Hoch}, on the other hand, *is* a noun, and it *is* the word used in
the {nIn Hoch} "all of the fuel" example.
If you're still not with me, I'd appreciate some examples to show why
you don't agree.
-- ghunchu'wI'