tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 15 19:41:16 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SIS
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:55:35 -0700 (PDT) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>
>
> >qaStaHvIS munungbogh Hogh naQ SIS.
>
> I still don't think {naQ} is the right word for this idea. If you think
> {Hogh naQ} means "the whole week," then what does {Hogh naQbe'} mean?
> "Not-whole week?" What's that? How can a week be not a whole week? If
> it's not a whole week, it's not a week. And if that's the case, what's the
> point of talking about the week being whole in the first place?
You begin to answer your own question. Quite well.
> Hogh Hoch
> the whole week
I know that I was one of the ones who thought {Hoch} should
follow a quantified noun like this, and I know that you have
worked out an entire system for when it should preceed and
follow, but has Okrand ever used {Hoch} after another noun?
voragh?
> Hogh HochHom
> most of the week
He definitely used {HochHom} after a noun, with the term
"most of the 23rd Century" rendered as {tera' vatlh DIS poH
cha'maH wej HochHom} (HolQeD v4n3p5).
> Hogh 'op
> some of the week
He has only used {'op} preceeding nouns. In particular, he used
the term {'op SuvwI'pu'} a couple times in HolQeD v4n3p4, Skybox
card S7.
> Hogh bID
> half of the week?
Unfortunately, if he has ever shown us how to use {bID}, I
missed it.
> >qaStaHvIS DaHjaj nungbogh Hogh naQ SIS.
>
> qaStaHvIS DaHjaj nungbogh Hogh Hoch SIS
>
> This isn't too bad.
I don't see either of these as massively superior to the other,
and without {naQ'e'} or {Hoch'e'}, it can be oddly interpreted
as "While the today which was preceeded by the whole week
happened, it rained."
I still prefer {SochHu' SISchoH. wej mev. yIQ Hoch 'ej jImogh!}
> SuStel
> Stardate 98455.9
charghwI'