tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 18 14:14:15 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: SIS

From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>


>So, I would use {naQ} for it: {Hogh naQ} 'a complete
>measure of that unit called a week'.  It's true this is redundant, since
>if it's not a full week, it's not a week at all, but in that case, neither
>{Hoch} or {naQ} should be used.

But don't you see, I agree completely with this.  That's the problem.

Let me go back to the pie example, since it's the most basic.  {chab naQ
vISop} means "I eat the pie which is described by the adjectives 'complete,
whole.'"  This does not imply that every bit of the pie was eaten, just that
that's the particular pie I ate.  When I say "I ate the whole pie," "whole"
is not an adjective describing the pie so much as it is an adverb describing
how much of it I ate.  Granted, the English word is probably defined as an
adjective, but that's not what it's doing.

"I ate the whole pie" is really best described in Klingon with {chab
vISopchu'}.  This says nothing about the pie itself, but it does say
something about my eating of it.  However, {chab naQ vISop}, or the
supposedly equivalent {naQbogh chab vISop} describes the PIE as being
"whole," and says nothing special about my eating of it.  It's not saying
what we want.

On the other hand, {chab Hoch vISop} is describing HOW MUCH of the pie I
ate, which is what I'm looking for.  You might think of the phrase {chab
Hoch} as meaning "pie's entirety."  As with any noun-noun construction, the
last noun is the object of the verb: the {Hoch}, not the {chab}.

Now we go back to time periods.  These are a little different, simply
because if you break down, say, a week, it is no longer a week, so talking
about a "full week" is a little redundant.  However, I don't think the
grammar will change because of this nitpick.  {qaS Hogh naQ} tells that a
week, which is described as a full week, happens.  {qaS Hogh Hoch} tells
that a week's entirety happens.  This is really what we mean.

This argument is further supported, I think, but the fact that there are no
verbs "be some of," "be most of," or even "be half of."  This could just be
lack of knowledge, of course, but I don't think so.  We've seen the nouns
performing this function a number of times now.

Use {naQ} when you're describing a thing which has not been broken up or
diminished or exhausted in any way.  Use {Hoch} when you're trying to talk
about the fact that the full amount of something is acted upon or acts.

SuStel
Stardate 98461.3

Back to archive top level