Re: Hoch

[WestphalWz@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/22/1999 2:59:04 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu writes:

<< 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:
  >>


naQ chabwIj
naQ Ha'DIbaH
naQ QoghIjlIj
'ach naQbe' yablIj

Ah, we have discovered a case of one to three of KLI's distinguished members
having arbitrarily decided that {naQ} means what they want it to.  Well, of
course, I have felt out the meaning of Klingon words.  The words are in the
dictionary without being used in sentences which prove to us exactly what they
mean.  Obvious to me is that we need a usage dictionary from the Source
himself.  We need lots more canon sentences.

Now, let's see how I am interpreting {naQ}.  Until you folks claimed that it
means "no parts missing," I looked at it only as "all there."  I am seeing
that we could both be right.  OTOH, MO may come up with another verb to
express your idea.

peHruS