Re: Hoch

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

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:43:23 -0800 (PST) WestphalWz@aol.com 
wrote:

> In a message dated 2/19/1999 2:03:30 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu writes:
> 
> << 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.
>   >>
> 
> I agree that {naQ roj} is a valid sentence.  I do not claim that {naQ} can
> only be a verb (functioning as an adjective to use the English grammar
> terminology) following a noun.  I really need to see {naQ} in canon sentences
> to gain a deeper understanding of its nuances, then.

I think the egg is a good example, though I can see how it could 
be confusing:

"Use one egg."

"Should I leave out the yolk? It will be lighter and fluffier 
and have less fat if I just use the white."

"No. Use the whole egg."

In this case, I do mean 100% of the egg, but more important than 
that, I mean use all parts that make up an egg. When you combine 
the white and the yolk, you get the whole egg. It may be a small 
whole egg or a large whole egg, but it is a whole egg, just like 
whole milk is not lacking any of its original fat the way that 
skim milk does. {naQ} is not so much referring to volume as to 
quality.

The point about {naQ} being a verb is that there is a related 
meaning between its use as main verb in a sentence, its use as 
an adjective and its use in a comparative.

If I say, {naQ X}, what am I saying about X? I'm saying that it 
is whole. I'm not saying that it is full. These are related 
ideas, but they are not synonymous.

I would expect this to be quite valid and normal for the verb:

SuvwI' qa' naQ law' nuchwI' qa' naQ puS.

Meanwhile, I would not expect to say "The glass is full" by 
saying {naQ HIvje'}. Instead, I would expect that to mean that 
the glass didn't have any chips or chinks in it, so none of its 
componants were missing. For the former meaning, I'd use {HIvje' 
teblu'chu'pu'}.

Now, if these are acceptable meanings for {naQ} as a main verb, 
why change the meaning while using it adjectivally. I know of 
only one verb with this kind of change. {pegh} is very different 
as a main verb than as an adjective. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure 
{pegh} is quite alone as an exception of this type and I'm not 
looking forward to finding other such exceptions.
 
> Meanwhile, I feel that {QIm naQ yIlo'} means "Use the entire egg, not just
> part of it."  My difficulty was in the connotation brought forth in English
> about a chemical substance being incomplete somehow.  Even the Klingon word
> {HutlhHa'} seems preferable.

I simply disagree. "Be whole, be entire". Yes, it is a whole 
egg, but not because it has the volume of an egg; because it has 
all the componants that make an egg complete. It has a yolk. It 
has a white. It has a shell. It is a whole egg. Here, the egg is 
an entity; a composit, not just a unit of measure (despite its 
treatment in cookbooks).
 
> peHruS

charghwI' 'utlh