tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 21 23:28:12 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
In a message dated 2/19/1999 2:47:42 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< If you're still not with me, I'd appreciate some examples to show why
you don't agree. >>
Here's an example showing how I am not with you.
{nIn naQ} seems to be "complete fuel" as opposed to "fuel which is lacking
some component which would normally make it [higher octane, perhaps]"
according to what I have read in your posts. No. According to what I have
seen of the meaning, only from TKD, not from canon sentence usage yet, this
still would mean "the entire fuel supply." Although I cannot recall being
told that {nIn} is inherently plural, I can only see {nInmey} as being
"various kinds of fuels." Thus, {nIn}, for example, refers to "the fuel" not
just "drops," or "pints," or "gallons." We do know for sure that this is true
of {Soj}.
So, if I read {Soj naQ}, according to my understanding, I will translate it as
"the complete supply of food, the complete amount of food, the entirity of the
food before me." I will not translate it as "food which has all the required
nutrients, therefore it is 'completely healthful'."
OTOH, I am beginning to hope MO proves you right. We need just such a word.
Meanwhile, this is a perfect example of how you and SuStel have "defined" the
word as YOU have read it from TKD for yourselves. Quite often I have felt out
the meaning of KLingon words. For that, I have "suffered the slings and
arrows of fate" because your interpretations have differed.
peHruS