Re: Hoch

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) WestphalWz@aol.com 
wrote:

> In a message dated 2/19/1999 6:53:12 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> aranders@netusa1.net writes:
> 
> << Have I helped you on to square two now?
>   >>
> 
> ghobe'
> 
> Now you are wrong regarding {Hoch}, too.  {Hoch} refers to "all" the elements
> of a set. 

>From what we can tell from Okrand's usage and pronouncements, 
{Hoch} preceeding a plural noun describes all members of the 
set. {Hoch} preceeding a singular noun describes each member of 
a set. {Hoch} following a noun refers to 100% of that noun. Your 
description, while declarative wasn't very complete.

> {HochHom} refers to "some" of the elements of a set. 

I'm pretty sure it refers to "most" of the elements of a set. We 
have the word {'op} to refer to "some" of the elements of a set.

> {naQ} refers
> to "all" of any one element (entity).

So far as I can tell, the concept of {naQ} is likely a little 
more complex than that. It seems to refer to "whole, entire", 
perhaps in the sense of "not lacking completion". The rest of 
these words have been nouns, while {naQ} is a verb. When I try 
to translate {naQ roj}, I don't use the word "all", and I'm not 
exactly talking about all elements of the entity of peace. 
Meanwhile, I do believe that {naQ roj} is a valid sentence. "The 
peace is complete." The verb is functioning toward a meaning 
that {Hoch} could not perform.

It's just my opinion, though.
 
> peHruS

charghwI' 'utlh