tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 26 12:26:26 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'ul
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: 'ul
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:01:17 -0500
From: TPO <[email protected]>
>>> Hoch mu'tay'mey all of the vocabs
>>> Hoch mu'tay' each vocab
>>> mu'tay' Hoch all of the vocab ([naQ] rur)
>>
>>Nope. You made this up. Nothing in canon says this is cool.
>>
>>charghwI'
>
>I didn't make it up. It was put on the list a few months ago. An
>observation from a previous BG I believe.
This looks a lot like my speculative posts on the nature of {Hoch} and
similar nouns. What DloraH has done here matches the logic, but the
particular circumstance here is weird. Talking about "each vocabulary" is a
bit strange, though I suppose I could imagine a context where it makes
sense.
My reasoning, which DOES follow canonical examples, yields the following:
Hoch tlhIngan
Every Klingon
Hoch tlhInganpu'
All Klingons
tlhIngan Hoch
All of the Klingon (Compare {tlhIngan naQ}, which some people use, and
which should be identical in meaning to {naQbogh tlhIngan} "The Klingon who
is whole." This is not the same meaning as {tlhIngan Hoch}.)
??tlhInganpu' Hoch??
??All of the group of Klingons?? (No evidence for this one, but it might
follow from the previous examples.)
The same would go for {'op} and {HochHom}, and possibly for {bID}. If you
wish I will try to find that post in the archives and repost it.
SuStel
Stardate 98156.5