tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 16 21:09:39 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Hoch



ja' peHruS:
>I have a bit of a problem with speculating that {naQ} means "complete" quite
>this way.  Show me some reason to think that it is that different from "all,
>entire" referring to the amount of the entity.

First, how about the obvious, uncontroversial fact that it is a *verb*?

{naQ nIn}  "The fuel is complete."  There's no way I can think of this
as referring to the quantity.

{naQbogh nIn}  "The fuel which is complete" also doesn't work describing
the idea of the quantity of the fuel.

{nIn naQ} is essentially the same idea as {naQbogh nIn}, though I get a
little difference in emphasis or specification when I consider the two
ways of saying it.  Using {-bogh} seems more restrictive, and treating
the verb adjectivally seems parenthetically descriptive.  But in both
cases, the meaning is a fuel which is whole or complete, not the amount
of the fuel.

Second, we have the canon example of {nIn Hoch} for "all of the fuel".

>Of course, this puts us back
>to square one in differentiating it from {Hoch}, which was the original
>problem.

Are you on square two with SuStel and me now?

-- ghunchu'wI'




Back to archive top level