tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 22 10:31:38 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:31:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:43:23 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/19/1999 2:03:30 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] 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