Re: Hoch

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

I think we only appear to disagree. Slowly, we come to join in 
the sense that {naQ} means what the gloss says it means: 
"Complete, entire, whole, full". Something which is {naQ} 
contains all the componants, all the substance that makes such a 
thing "complete".

Your earlier expression of the word "intact" doesn't sound all 
that far off from my understanding of {naQ}. I think it is a 
little different, but "intact" is closer to my understanding of 
{naQ} than using {naQ} as a unit of volume as if it were some 
sort of number, the way {Hoch} is rightfully used when it 
preceeds a noun, or as a quantity-type modifier.

To plunge further into the difference:

If I have an entire ship at home, I'd say:

Duj naQ vIghaj.

If I have all the PIECES of a ship at home, I'd say:

Duj Hoch vIghaj.

This means I could build a ship out of everything I have. I have 
all of a ship; a ship's all.

That is not necessarily the same thing as a whole ship or a 
complete ship. Part of completion is assembly.

Meanwhile, if you just want to talk about quantity of parts, 
{Duj Hoch} works for that.

Your use of the keyword "intact" is what made me think about 
this. A ship is not complete if it is in pieces. Meanwhile, if 
you count pieces, you can have "all of a ship" and not have it 
assembled.

This is a step to the side of what has been said yet, so I am 
interested in comment and I can be swayed.

charghwI' 'utlh

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 06:41:46 -0800 (PST) Marc Ruehlaender 
<ruehli@iastate.edu> wrote:

> jIja':
> > > 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.
> > > 
> 
> mujang charghwI', ja':
> > 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.
> > 
> all right, what I meant was, that IIRC peHruS was complaining about
> interpreting nIn naQ as a kind of fuel that is actually useable as
> fuel as opposed to some chemical substance that might be used as
> fuel if it wasn't somehow "incomplete".
> 
> I do not understand what nIn naQ means, unless you accompany it
> with several paragraphs of explanation. the same goes for my other
> examples. 
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> o.k. I too don't agree with that interpretation.
> 
> > 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 
> 
> that was exactly my point. nIn to me is the same kind of word
> as bIQ or Hap or SIp. 
> 
>                                            Marc Ruehlaender
>                                            aka HomDoq
>                                            ruehli@iastate.edu