tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 22 21:40:03 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 2/22/99 10:43:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

I could be overstepping into BG area here, but I had to make a comment (since
even I, the beginner, understand this part of the language):

<<  But now I see
 that you think {naQ} following a noun can be something other than a verb.
 That explains why you think {roj naQ} could mean "all of the peace" --
 even though it fails to explain why you think {naQ} following a noun can
 be anything other than a verb meaning "be complete".
Hoch roj - all of the peace
roj naQ - complete peace
naQ roj - The peace is complete

Two different concepts.  First, Hoch has been described and used often enough
in a sense of "all of the [something]," so noun phrase 1 is alright [unless a
BG disagrees].  The second example is another noun phrase with a different
meaning.It is "complete peace," as in a society similar to the Federation in
2364 - it was in a state of total peace at the time.  The third example is a
sentence [pretty self explanatory] that the peace is complete, not lacking in
any aspect.  Either all of some instance of fighting [a war, etc.] has ended
or a society is fully at peace.

 >I really need to see {naQ} in canon sentences
 >to gain a deeper understanding of its nuances, then.
 I don't think it *has* any nuances!  It means "be full, whole, entire."

naQ is so simple, even puqpu' could use it.

 That in itself is sufficient to explain its use, even if it never shows
 up in any examples penned by Okrand.  Why do you keep tripping yourself
 up by trying to use it to mean "be all of"?  

As far as I have seen, "be all of" can be sufficiently expressed by proceeding
a noun with "Hoch - all".

I'm not putting you down
 because you used it incorrectly once or twice; I'm just very frustrated
 because you continue to proclaim that it makes sense that way without
 ever actually addressing the arguments against your position.

bIQ ngaS peHruS HIvje'.
 >Meanwhile, I feel that {QIm naQ yIlo'} means "Use the entire egg, not just
 >part of it."
 An egg is an interesting thing to use as an example here, and one that
 might actually have been useful if you were willing to pay attention.
 For anyone else who *is* paying attention, I'll say something about the
 difference between {naQ} and {Hoch} following {QIm}.
 QIm naQ - the complete egg.  This is the egg that is all together.  It
 is not the egg that has had the yolk removed, or the one that has been
 peeled and the shell discarded.  It is an egg which is not missing any
 of its components.
 It is *an egg*.
 QIm Hoch - all the egg.  This is every last bit of the egg.  It is not
 some of the egg, or even most of the egg.  It is the total quantity of
 the egg that is under consideration.
Can Hoch follow a noun? If so, what is the intended meaning?

 It is *an amount* of egg.
 >My difficulty was in the connotation brought forth in English
 >about a chemical substance being incomplete somehow.  Even the Klingon word
 >{HutlhHa'} seems preferable.
HutlhHa' - un-lack, dis-lack, mis-lack - huh?  naQbe' seems better than this.

 It doesn't seem to fit the idea from where I'm looking.  How would you
 use {HutlhHa'} to describe an incomplete substance or object?
 The verb {naQ} means "be complete" -- that's its definition.  So the word
 {naQbe'} obviously means something like "not be complete", doesn't it?
 -- ghunchu'wI'

Incomplete sounds better by saying naQbe'.  I might use naQHa' - but I'd need
some swaying there.


[I apologize for overstepping here.  This thread began to bug me.  Seriously,
bIQ ngaS peHruS HIvje'.]

Back to archive top level