tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 21 20:38:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: tlhab ja'qu'ghach
ja' SuStel:
>> You're right, sorry. But what about "minor everything?" It *is* canonical.
>
>Quite true. It's canonical, but do you understand it perfectly? Why does it
>come *after* the noun? Alan Anderson used it in his story in {jatmey}, with
>it coming after the noun (whereas {Hoch} usually comes before the noun).
>That
>was interesting; he was suggesting that {HochHom} is a special word which
>does
>not act exactly like {Hoch}.
I was "suggesting" nothing. I was merely using it in the only way I
have seen it used.
> The bottom line is that we have but one instance
>of the word, and no explanation. My instincts tell me that Marc Okrand was
>simply looking for a quick way to write "almost," and jotted that down. I
>also suspect it was before he decided exactly how {Hoch} works.
{HochHom} as a noun meaning approximately "minor everything" seems to
me to be unrelated to the use of {Hoch} as either "every" or "each".
>If you use {HochHom} in a sentence, I won't tell you it's WRONG, but I'll
>make
>sure to point out that it's not certain how to use it, either.
We don't have a rule or instructions, true, but we *do* have an example.
-- ghunchu'wI'