tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 19 05:41:51 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hoch

ja' peHruS:
>I think you are using Hoch okay.  The problem is your definition of naQ.

"My" definition of {naQ} is the one I see in The Klingon Dictionary.

  naQ - be full, whole, entire (v) [TKD Addendum E-K]
  naQ - be full, whole, entire, complete (v) [TKD Addendum K-E]

If you say something like {chab naQ} "the whole pie" you're talking 
about the complete pie, the full pie, or the pie with nothing missing. 
You are not talking about the half-eaten pie, the pie that has not yet
had its crust added, or the pie with a piece gone.  You are talking 
about a pie, and you are describing that pie as being whole.

{naQ} does not mean "be all of" or "be the entirety of".  If you're 
talking about "all of the pie" then you're focusing on the "all" idea.
If you say something like {chab Hoch} "the whole pie" you are talking 
about every last piece of the pie, the total contents of the pie pan, 
or everything from the flour dust under the pie's bottom crust through
the filling to the crunchy dark patches flaking off the top.  You are 
talking about an entirety, one that belongs to a pie.

You can still talk about "all of the half-eaten pie" if you want, but 
you'd use {Hoch} to do it.  {naQbe'bogh chab Hoch} works fine.

Have I helped you on to square two now?

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level