tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 16 15:12:16 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op



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 prett
> y 
> > > attractive to me right now.
> > > 
I replied
> > 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 betwe
> en
> > {Hoch chab} and {Hoch chabmey} mostly in that the latter explicitly uses a
> > plural suffix, while the former doesn't
> 
and finally charghwI' mentioned
> 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.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
actually, when I read ~mark's article in HolQeD 5:2, that's what
made it clear to me: use "each" and "collectively" to translate
the two meanings more clearly.

yes, I think I got it now...

> > 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.
> 
however, I'm wrong, I believe now. Captain Krankor pointed me to
TKW p. 72 in his column in 5:2, and there we find

{... 'e' tul Hoch SuvwI'}

(sorry, I'm citing from memory now, but I'm sure it uses the 0
verb prefix for he/she/it-him/her/it and not {lu-} for
they-him/her/it)

charghwI' also suggests
> '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. (he's guessing this one)
> 
I thought it would have to be

'op chab = some of the pies, individually
'op cabmey = some of the pies together

> 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.
> 
wouldn't it have to be

bID chab = half the pies, individually
bID chabmey = half the pies together?

maybe I didn't get it after all?

let me try to give some sentences and how I thought they'd translate:

wa' chab Sop Hoch puq             Each child ate one pie.
wa' chab luSop Hoch puqpu'        All the children shared one pie.

wa' chab Sop HochHom puq          Most children ate one pie.
                    (the others may have eaten more or less than that)
wa' chab luSop HochHom puppu'     Most children shared one pie.
                    (the others ate somthing else)

wa' chab neH Sop 'op puq          Some children ate only one pie.
wa' chab luSop 'op puqpu'         Some children shared one pie.

wa' chab Sop wa' bID puq          One half of the children ate one pie each.
wa' chab luSop bID puqpu' latlh.  The other half shared one pie.

one reason why I didn't think bID should work like Hoch, HochHom and 'op
is that bIDmey actually makes good sense to me, whereas neither Hochmey
nor HochHommey nor 'opmey do. but this may be due to their not being
what I might think they are (i.e "alls", "mosts" and "somes")

confused,
HomDoq



Back to archive top level