tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 16 12:59:40 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: Re: Hoch, et al.
- From: Terry Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: KLBC: Re: Hoch, et al.
- Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 14:59:22 -0500 (CDT)
In the beating-a-dead-horse department:
Looking back over some recent postings and the article by d'Armond Speers
in HolQeD 3:3, it seems that there is fundamental agreement that the N-N
construction expresses *something* more than simple possession (Speers'
GENITIVE non-possessive); I still think a case can be made for extending
this to a true attributive, but I'd need lots more canonical examples to
prove it. So, I'm bowing to concensus on the placement of {Hoch} to mean
"all", and withdrawing completely my suggestions about {nuq, 'Iv, latlh}
and {vay'}.
But one question: if {Hoch} comes last in a N-N construction to mean "all
(of)", shouldn't the first noun be plural? Does {yuQ Hoch} = "the entire
planet" and {yuQmey Hoch} = "all the planets"?
- Terry
===============================================
: Terry Donnelly : bIvangtaHvIS :
: Maplewood Pub. Lib. : yIyoHvIpQo' 'ej :
: 7601 Manchester Ave. : yIDoHQo' - :
: St. Louis, MO 63143 : Hoch yIn 'oH ngong'e':
: (314) 781-2174 : R. W. Emerson :
===============================================