Re: Hoch

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

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:43:59 -0800 (PST) WestphalWz@aol.com 
wrote:

> naQ chabwIj

My pie is complete. My pie is whole.

> naQ Ha'DIbaH

The animal is whole. The animal is entire? The animal is 
complete?

> naQ QoghIjlIj

Your brain is whole. Your brain is complete.

> 'ach naQbe' yablIj

But your mind is not whole, full, complete, entire.

Given the right context, these could make sense, but they don't 
strike me as particularly great examples. I also don't see how 
they tie in to your rather lone interpretation of how {naQ} 
works when it follows a noun. That's what I've asked for and you 
have not done it yet.

You have, however, made progress. This is the first time you 
have actually used {naQ} as a verb, though you didn't bother to 
translate it so we could see how you translate it.
 
> 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. 

tlhoS bIyajchoH. What you have is a case of at least three KLI 
members, distinguished or not, who AGREE on what it means, so 
when we use it in Klingon discourse (which your arguments 
distract us from), we will communicate successfully.

You don't seem to have much interest in communicating 
successfully while using the language. You prefer to declare 
controversial things so you can remain the center of threads 
that refuse to either die OR conclude anything.

Like this one.

I will confess that I find myself looking closer at {naQ} than I 
ever did before. I mean, it's range of function is rather 
limited and I'm not sure that totally nailing down its meaning 
is all that important, but as a byproduct of all this arguing, I 
know that I feel more focussed and clear on its likely meaning 
than I would have otherwise. It seems like a high cost, low 
reward blessing, though.

> 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.

Likely, we'll continue to get them. This is a good thing. What 
bothers me is the agressive, nasty complaining about what Okrand 
NEEDS to do that flows from you like a perpetual fountain.

I tend to rather much appreciate everything he already has done. 
Without his talent, attention and odd flukes of Fate, there 
wouldn't be a language here for us to enjoy. So enjoy it.
 
> 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." 

This discussion started with you not giving it any verbal 
meaning at all. You were only using it following nouns and you 
were translating it meaning "all", which is a word not in the 
dictionary definition, while we were using words like "complete" 
and "whole", which ARE in the dictionary. I mean, when you see 
the words "complete, whole, full, entire" piled next to each 
other, there does seem to be a common thread of meaning. That is 
what our interpretation flows from.

You started with {Hoch}, ignored the example of what {Hoch} 
means when it follows a noun and decided that {naQ} means what 
{Hoch} means when it follows a noun. Everything since then has 
been efforts to plug a rather leaky argument.

> I am seeing
> that we could both be right.  OTOH, MO may come up with another verb to
> express your idea.

He doesn't need to. He already gave us {naQ}. As for what YOU 
want to use {naQ} for, he already gave us {Hoch} following 
another noun.
 
> peHruS

charghwI' 'utlh