tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 14 19:15:44 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op

[email protected] on behalf of Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
> SuStel wrote:
> > Okay, let's look at the revised rules for {Hoch}, {HochHom}, and {'op}.  
> > Remember, some of this ('op!) is just speculation, but it's looking pretty 

> > attractive to me right now.
> > 
> let's see... to me there's little difference between saying "every pie" and
> "all pies". both express a plural to me - thus I'd see the difference 
between
> {Hoch chab} and {Hoch chabmey} mostly in that the latter explicitly uses a
> plural suffix, while the former doesn't
> 
> I'd say {Hoch chab DISop} rather than {Hoch chab ?wISop}

No, we KNOW there's a difference between {Hoch chab} and {Hoch chabmey}.  See 
HolQeD 5:2, p.11.

Hoch chab
Each pie, taken as one at a time.

Hoch chabmey
All pies, taken as a single group.

This is not in question.

> same for {HochHom} and {'op} (although you can express the "difference" 
> between {'op chab} and {'op chabmey} in German)
> 
> on the other hand, if these words follow the noun, I think of the phrase
> as being singular:
> 
> {chab Hoch wISop} rather than {chab Hoch ?DISop}
> 
> therefore, I don't understand what SuStel thinks the difference between
> {chab 'op} and {chabmey 'op} might be... all I can come up with for the
> latter would be equivalent to {'op chabmey}

I said that I'm not sure there IS a difference between {chab 'op} and {chabmey 
'op}.  I'm not even sure if {chabmey 'op} makes sense, or if it is any 
different than {'op chabmey}.

But there probably IS a difference between {'op chab} and {'op chabmey}.  The 
same difference that one finds for {Hoch}.

> > Finally, I'd like to consider another quantity word which has plagued us
> > with
> > questions: {bID}.  How is it used?  We've never been able to resolve that 
> > question.  Wouldn't it be fantastic if it acted just like the other
> > quantity 
> > nouns?  {bID chab} "half of the pies," {bID chabmey} "half of the pies"
> > (the 
> > English translation of which has the same problems as {'op}); {chab bID}
> > "hal
> > f 
> > of the pie."
> > 
> I don't agree here. IF {bID} was a numeral, then {bID chab} would have to be
> "half a pie".

If {Hoch} and {bID} work the same way, then you'd come up with {Hoch tlhIngan} 
meaning "all of a Klingon," which it doesn't mean.

> However, IF it is just a simple noun, the N-N-construct
> {chab bID} means "a pie's half", which is nothing else but "half a pie"
> to me. So, I'd prefer to leave {bID} a noun. (Oh, yeah: "half of the pies"
> would then of course be {chabmey bID}

It's been shown that non-number non-verb quantifiers do NOT act in the typical 
"Y of the X" format all the time.  These words do NOT act in a standard 
noun-noun phrase.  {Hoch tlhIngan} means "every Klingon."  It also does not 
work along the same lines as {jav tlhIngan} "six Klingons}.  {jav tlhIngan} 
takes the six Klingons as a whole, while {Hoch tlhIngan} makes the point that 
we're talking about every Klingon, but that only one general one is chosen to 
represent the phrase at a time.  {jav tlhInganpu'} still means "six Klingons," 
but {Hoch tlhInganpu'} means "all Klingons, taken as a whole, not 
individually."

Since {bID} is listed in TKD as a noun, not as a number, I'm questioning 
whether it works like the other words we've got that give quantities, but are 
not numbers.  Just as {Hoch} is defined as "everyone, all, everything," but a 
better translation for this particular usage is "every one of," so perhaps 
{bID}, while defined as "half," might better be translated as "half of" for 
this usage.

You cannot just substitute words into the "Y of the X" and get the correct 
answer.  "All of the Klingons" is not {tlhInganpu' Hoch}, it's {Hoch 
tlhInganpu'}.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97620.8

Back to archive top level