tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 17 19:17:39 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' vaghmaH vagh: <taS SuQ>
It's really easy to get an emotional attachment to a specific, if unjustified interpretation of the meaning of a word. I really don't much reason to make any more assumptions about how many {'op} is than I would about specifically identifying the subject of {leghlu'}. The whole point of {-lu'} is to NOT specify the subject, and the whole point of {'op} is to not specify the number.
It does suggest greater than zero, and I believe less than all, since I honestly read it as "an unspecified portion", and zero is not a portion and all is not a portion. Think of it as one half, with a margin of error of 0.4999999999999999...
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
[email protected]
On Oct 17, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> I still see it as part of a simple progression:
>
> none - some - half - most - all
> pagh - 'op - bID - HochHom - Hoch
>
>
> YMMV.
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ghunchu'wI' 'utlh [mailto:[email protected]]
>>
>> ja' Voragh:
>>> It might just be my dialect, but {'op} "some" implies "few" or
>>> at least "not many"... I think of {'op} as being the opposite
>>> of {HochHom} "most, greater part",...
>>
>> I too disagree with that understanding. I think {'op} just means an
>> unspecified number. It implies a number greater than zero, and I
>> wouldn't use it when the number is likely to be all of the population
>> being considered, but I don't know that doing so would be wrong.
>>
>> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol