tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 16 06:50:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: usage of Hoch and latlh
I'd like to put my two cents in on this topic, and give an opinion I've had
for a long time. It has nothing to do with numbers or partitives, but
instead focuses on the fundamental concept of the N1-N2 construction.
When we say N1-N2 means "N1's N2" or "the N2 of N1", we are actually
giving the English equivalent expressions for one of the functions of the
N1-N2 form: the possessive. As d'Armond and I both noted in the pages of
HolQeD, there is at least one other function, the Genitive, represented
by phrases like {peQ chem} and {pIpyuS pach}. In these, the English
possessive expressions don't make much sense. Instead, we render this
function into English using English adjectives of origin, composition,
and the like. But we are again only giving English equivalents to the
Klingon N1-N2 form.
To me, the fundamental nature of the N1-N2 form is "set N2 is restricted
to the subset N1". This fully accounts for the behavior of the N1-N2
form mas we know it:
Possessive: {yaS taj} of the set of knives, the one restricted (by
ownership) to the officer
Genitive: {pIpyuS pach} of the set of claws, the one restricted to a
pipius.
It also accounts for the use of {pagh} and {Hoch} as we have recently
come to know them:
{pagh tlhIngan} of the set of Klingons, the one restricted to none
{Hoch tlhInganpu'} of the set of klingons, the all-inclusive one
I believe this also points to the proper use of {latlh} and {vay'}:
{latlh tlhIngan} of the set of Klingons, another subset
{vay' tlhIngan} of the set of Klingons, an indefinite subset
Some of these words are difficult to translate directly when used this
way (e.g. {vay'}. In these cases, we must get beyond the conventional
English translation of the word, "someone", and get to the root meaning:
indefiniteness. After all, it is only the fact that English has
different forms for some nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., that makes our
translations use different words. Whether we translate {Sov} as "know"
or "knowledge", the form of the klingon word stays the same. The same is
true of the words above:
{Hoch} = inclusiveness; as a noun "everyone, everything", as N1 in an N2
construction, "all"
{vay'} = indefiniteness; as a noun "someone, something", as N1 in an
N1-N2 construction, "some, a certain"
It gets in the way of understanding to try to treat these words as
numbers or to try to squeeze Okrand's use of {Hoch} into a possessive
translation. When I look at the fundamental meaning behind the N1-N2
form, it seems very clear to me.
-- ter'eS