Re: Hoch

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

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:55:02 -0800 (PST) Marc Ruehlaender 
<ruehli@iastate.edu> wrote:

> peHruS ja' charghwI':
> > So far, I've seen two interpretations of Hoch vs. naQ. Yours and 
> > everybody else's. Everyone who has spoken up so far has agreed 
> > on one, and you alone insist on the other.
> > 
> I'd like to say that in the case of nIn, I am on peHruS's side.
> 
> how can fuel be "whole"? what is bIQ naQ? tI naQ?
> 
> I doubt that I would understand these expressions without
> further explanation.
> 
>                                            Marc Ruehlaender
>                                            aka HomDoq
>                                            ruehli@iastate.edu

I'm saying that for the most part, these WOULD be very curious 
terms. What peHruS is saying is that these are quite normal 
terms and he understands them and they have a meaning that is 
quite different from that others have expressed that they would 
mean.

I could as easily argue about {Sor Hap jeD} to refer to a thick 
plank. Just because I use the word {jeD} to refer to wood the 
way I personally choose to use it doesn't make that a valid use 
of {jeD}.

What I'm saying and what several other people are saying is that 
{naQ} has a meaning and that meaning refers to wholeness in the 
sense of containing all componants which comprise the described 
noun. "Be full, whole, entire, complete". Something that is 
{naQ} is not missing any parts, like a whole egg is not missing 
the yolk or a whole warrior is not missing honor, loyalty or the 
will to fight.

The problem here is that peHruS is looking at {naQ} used as an 
adjective without referring to its use as a verb. So, the way 
*I* see {naQ}, I look at {naQ QIm} AND {QIm naQ}. What does the 
first one mean? The egg is whole. What does the second one mean? 
The whole egg.

Now, what about peHruS's precious {nIn naQ}? Okay, lets look at 
{naQ nIn}. What does that mean, exactly? Well, let's see. By 
peHruS's description, it should mean, "The fuel is full." Not 
"The fuel TANK is full." Just, "The fuel is full." That looks 
odd to me.

And what about your examples? {bIQ naQ}. {tI naQ}. Let's turn 
them around and see what they say. {naQ bIQ}. {naQ tI}.

Do they make sense to you? They don't make sense to me. If you 
can bring me to understand the word pairs as sentences, I can 
begin to understand them as noun phrases, but don't just 
randomly jam together a verb like this and a noun and expect me 
to explain to you what they mean.

I don't think peHruS's interpretation of the meaning works. 
That's the whole point of this arguement. At least three of us 
seem to understand each other and we think peHruS is way out in 
left field. If you truely believe that peHruS is correct in his 
interpretation of {naQ}, please elaborate, especially in terms 
of accepting that this kind of verb generally functions both as 
a main verb when preceeding a noun AND as an adjective when 
following one, and the meanings of these tend to be related:

tIn tI.

Okay, a new thought:

tIn tI tIn.

The big vegetation is big.

tIn bIQ tIn.

The big water is big.

naQ tI naQ...

Ummm. I'm not sure what that means. The whole vegetation is 
whole? The full vegetation is full? The entire vegetation is 
entire? The complete vegetation is complete? Hmmm. Maybe these 
two words don't work next to each other and we are beating 
ourselves up trying to find meaning where none exists.

charghwI' 'utlh