tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 08:39:16 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:38:52 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
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
<[email protected]> 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
> [email protected]