tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 15 14:18:18 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op

According to Marc Ruehlaender:
> 
> 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

Well, SuStel didn't pick the best word to describe the
difference. {Hoch chabmey} is "All pies". {Hoch chab} is "Each
pie". See? "Each" and "Every" are similar in meaning, but in
this case I believe that "Each" carries the meaning more
clearly.

Hoch SuvwI'pu' vISuch.

Hoch SuvwI' vISuch.

The first suggests that there was a place where there were a
lot of warriors and I visited that place and spent time with
them all. The second implies that I travelled around and
visited each of them individually.

During a military ceremony, you could fly over an aircraft
carrier and accurately say, {Hoch SuvwI'pu' vIlegh.} Unless you
landed and spend some time walking around that carrier,
however, you could not say, {Hoch SuvwI' vIlegh.

See the difference?

> I'd say {Hoch chab DISop} rather than {Hoch chab ?wISop}

Interesting. We know that inherantly plural nouns are to be
treated grammatically as singular, so if you just used {Hoch},
it should be {Hoch wISop}. Meanwhile, plurals qualified by
numbers are treated as plural whether the plural suffix exists
or not:

cha' chab DISop.

We know that numbers can be used as nouns. Unfortunately, the
canon we have does not reveal whether or not such numbers are
treated grammatically as singular, like other inherantly plural
nouns, or plural, as if the implicit nouns are explicit.

Which is correct?

cha' DISop.
cha' wISop.

So far, we have favored {cha' DISop}, but we could easily be
wrong. Okrand has not revealed which is correct.

And if we are right, and if {Hoch} really is used as a number,
then I'd have to say {Hoch chab DISop} is correct, just as
{cha' chab DISop} is correct.

> 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}

Agreed.

> 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}

It is confusing. I doubt I understand it, either, though I have
tried. I'm hoping that my current boundaries of potential
expression implied with English is not stopping me from seeing
this distinction. The only place I can bend my mind on that one
is:

'op chab = Some portion of each pie
'op chabmey = some number of all of the pies
chab 'op = some portion of the pie
chabmey 'op = some portion of some of the pies.

The last definition is less a logical construction than it is
tossing in one more meaning not otherwise covered by the other
three. By following, it refers to portions rather than whole
pies, and since a portion of every pie is already covered by
{'op chab}, this could extend the meaning. That's the only
guess I have left to offer.

> > 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". 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}

That's exactly how I felt about {Hoch} and I was apparently
wrong. If we consider {bID} to act more like {Hoch}, then we
have more productive potential for its uses.

bID chab = half a pie. 0.5 pies.
bID chabmey = Half of all the pies
chab bID = a pie half.

The difference I see is that if you and I are supposed to share
a pie, I'd say:

bID chabvam HInob!

After you cut it, I would take my half a pie and say:

DaH chab bIDwIj vISop!

A chab bID is an object. A bID chab is a measurement. Does this
make any sense to anybody else?

chabmey bID = more than one chab bID, of course. wej chabmey
bID DItu'ta'. That means we found three objects which were each
half a pie. If instead we found a pie and a half, I'd have said
{wa' chab bID chab je DItu'ta'.} Or even {wa' chab chab bID je
DItu'ta'.} It just depends on whether I'm measuring or ...

I think I'm thinking too much.

> > Heh . . . I wonder if Klingons ever break the rules like they do with 
> > {Hochlogh}, to say {bIDlogh} "half of the time" . . .
> > 
> I'd see it more like "half a time", but then ...

I agree with you. You stopped midway through {wa'logh}...

> HomDoq

charghwI'

Back to archive top level