tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 10 23:25:54 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:32:49 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Qov <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj
>At 12:07 97-12-09 -0800, Doneq wrote:
>}wa'Hu', mu'ghomHomwIj vIghItlhta'. mu'tay' Hoch ngaS 'e' vIHar.
>
>{mu'tay' naQ} - the entire vocabulary
>{Hoch mu'tay'} - every vocabulary
>{Hoch mu'tay'mey} - all the vocabularies
>
>I think you want {naQ}.
Not necessarily. {mu'tay' naQ} refers to a vocabulary which has the quality
of being whole. (As a test, would you want to say {naQbogh mu'tay'}?) This
*could* be what Doneq wants to say, but there is also evidence to support
his construction.
KGT p. 155: {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'} "All the fuel has been consumed." It is
not {nIn naQ}. (Though there could be differences in that fuel is not
something with pre-defined portions.)
{mu'tay' naQ} "the vocabulary which is whole"
{mu'tay' Hoch} "all of the vocabulary"
{Hoch mu'tay'} "every vocabulary"
{Hoch mu'tay'mey} "all of the vocabularies"
If I had been writing this sentence, I would have used {mu'tay' Hoch} also.
(Though I would have used {-law'}, too: {mu'tay' Hoch ngaSlaw'}.)
SuStel
Stardate 97944.5