tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 21 23:28:12 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[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, 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.


Back to archive top level