tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 16 06:53:24 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op



majQa'!

On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:23:24 -0700 (PDT)  David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> 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.
> 
> There are more examples of {Hoch} as we understand it from TKW and HolQeD 5:2, 
> p. 11.  On KGT pp. 108-110 we see a few examples of the {Hoch} we all know and 
> love.  It acts just like a number when it precedes a noun, that number being 
> "all."

Okay.
 
> People have often used the verb {naQ} "be full, whole, entire" to express 
> concepts like "the whole pie" (See Krankor, HolQeD 5:2, p. 3).  Indeed, this 
> seemed to be the thing to do, as {Hoch chab} meant "every pie," and not "all 
> of a single pie."  Occasionally, this verb has rubbed me the wrong way.  It 
> seems to make perfect sense, but the idea of eating a "pie which is 
> full/whole/entire" has always made me wonder: are we really trying to talk 
> about the state of the pie, or the amount which we eat?  Supposing we bake a 
> pie, and no one has eaten it yet.  This is a {chab naQ}.  Now, if I bite into 
> it, I have begun to eat a {chab naQ}.  After the first bite, it's not {naQ} 
> anymore.

Now, you ARE being picky. Before you bit it, it was chab naQ. 
You didn't eat chab naQ. You just bit into chab naQ. You don't 
get credit for eating chab naQ until you've finished the last 
bite. Once you take the first bite, chab naQ is not available to 
anyone else to eat, but the potential is still there for you if 
you remain persistent.
 
> This is an extremely narrow interpretation of {naQ}, and I've never really 
> worried to much about it.  However, with a new sentence on KGT p. 155, I'm 
> beginning to think that I was right all along.
> 
> nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'
> All the fuel has been consumed.
> 
> ({natlh} "use up, consume, expend")
> 
> Here, {Hoch} *follows* the noun!  The only other time we've seen anything like 
> this is on SkyBox card S15 in the difficult to understand phrase
> 
> qItI'nga' Duj tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH.  
> The K'Tinga-Class remained in use for most of the 23rd century.
> 
> It would seem that when talking about a *quantifiable* noun, a noun which 
> describes a plurality of things, {Hoch} will come before it and act as a 
> number.  {Hoch chab} "every pie"; {Hoch chabmey} "all of the pies."  When 
> talking about a noun which describes a portion of just one thing, {Hoch} will 
> follow the noun and act more like an adjectival verb (though it is not one).  
> {chab Hoch} "all of the pie."  This explains the apparently backwards use of 
> {HochHom} in the SkyBox card; it's describing "almost all" of the 23rd 
> century, a portion of the 23rd century.

This covers everything except {chabmey Hoch}. If the logic was 
extended, this would mean something like "all of the pies", not 
referring to the number of the pies, but to the undiminished 
mass of the pies. In other words, if I told you:

QanqorvaD Hoch chabmey yInob!

You might break off a little crust just for a little taste and I 
could not really give you too much of a hard time about it. You 
did deliver all of the pies, after all. But if I directed you:

QanqorvaD chabmey Hoch yInob!

Well, then, that little crust might cost you your life! I told 
you to deliver every molocule belonging to all of the pies! Does 
this make sense to anyone else?
 
> Furthermore, {HochHom} itself has been nicely defined in the KGT wordlist: 
> "most, greater part (n)."  So has {'op}, that word which we weren't quite sure 
> about: "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity (n)."  My guess, completely 
> unsupported by any canon examples, is that both of these words work exactly 
> like {Hoch}.  They are all quantity nouns.  So, we get {HochHom chab} "almost 
> every pie," {HochHom chabmey} "almost all of the pies"; {'op chab} "some of 
> the pies," {'op chabmey} "some of the pies."  (I can't think of an appropriate 
> way to express the difference between {'op chab} and {'op chabmey} in English! 

{'op chabmey} = some number of pies
{'op chab} = some portion of each pie

>  Perhaps {'op chab} could be "each of some of the pies.")  We also get {chab 
> 'op} "some of the pie} and {chab HochHom} "most of the pie."  (There's no 
> telling if there's a difference between {chab 'op} and {chabmey 'op}, or even 
> if it's allowed.)

Ouch. I just stubbed a toe. {'op chab} can't be a portion of 
each pie if {chabmey 'op} is a portion of the pies.  jImIS. paS. 
jIQongnIS. jIwuQchoH.
 
> 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} "half 
> of the pie."
> 
> Heh . . . I wonder if Klingons ever break the rules like they do with 
> {Hochlogh}, to say {bIDlogh} "half of the time" . . .

I still want {'arlogh}.

> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97617.4

charghwI'





Back to archive top level