tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 23 06:45:32 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
speech
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: speech
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 09:45:24 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Nick Nicholas's message of Tue, 23 Nov 1993 11:01:23 +1100 (GMT) <[email protected]>
>From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 11:01:23 +1100 (GMT)
>To Mark E. Shoulson respond I thus:
>#>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>A couple of questions.
>#>chorghmaH Soch ben puH'a'vamDaq wo' chu' chenmoH vavpu'maj
>I know "ben" is translated as "years ago", but is "chorghmaH Soch ben" really
>an adverbial expression? If Okrand says it's a noun, I suspect it's a noun,
>and something more like chorghmaH Soch ben qaSDI' might be more appropriate.
>Any canon examples?
Wellllll, I don't think there's a canon example for that word specifically,
but there are some *very* closely related ones. Compare: "Hu'" is given as
"days ago", and "wa'Hu'" is "yesterday," "cha'Hu'" is "the day before
yesterday". We know these are adverbial; we have canon phrases like
"wa'Hu' jIghung" (yesterday I was hungry). I'd say it's pretty safe to
allow "wa'ben" for "last year" and "wa'nem" for next year, adverbially,
even as I'd accept "wa'maHleS" for "ten days from now."
>#> wo'vetlhDaq tlhab ghajtaH Hoch 'ej potlhtaH Hoch ghot
>wo'vamDaq, surely, if this is the current topic of discussion?
*shrug*. "this" vs. "that" is something I can easily see not being
well-defined.
>#I'd
>#say "ghotpu' Hoch", "the people's all" (like "my all", etc, for "all of me").
>Is there any canon evidence for treating Hoch like the other numbers, like
>we do in Lojban? I suspect not...
It's not a number, it's a noun. In Hebrew, the word for "all" is also a
noun, and it's used in possessive constructions: "all of the children"
(hey, sounds like English, doesn't it? Fancy that.) Hence, I'd accept
"puqpu' Hoch".
~mark