tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 20:57:32 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Hoch

ja' peHruS:
>Here's an example showing how I am not with you.
>{nIn naQ} seems to be "complete fuel" as opposed to "fuel which is lacking
>some component which would normally make it [higher octane, perhaps]"
>according to what I have read in your posts.  No.  According to what I have
>seen of the meaning, only from TKD, not from canon sentence usage yet, this
>still would mean "the entire fuel supply."

Do yourself a favor and read KGT page 155.  You will see that the correct
way to say "the entire fuel supply" is {nIn Hoch}.  If you don't see it,
I'll count the lines and words for you and tell you exactly where to find
it on the page.

>Although I cannot recall being
>told that {nIn} is inherently plural, I can only see {nInmey} as being
>"various kinds of fuels."  Thus, {nIn}, for example, refers to "the fuel" not
>just "drops," or "pints," or "gallons."  We do know for sure that this is true
>of {Soj}.

This is all reasonable, but I don't see how it's relevant.  [I could say
something about the difference between "inherently plural" and "mass"
nouns, but it would merely serve to confuse the issue further.]

>So, if I read {Soj naQ}, according to my understanding, I will translate it as
>"the complete supply of food, the complete amount of food, the entirity of the
>food before me."

If you are saying "the entirety of the food", you are using a phrasing
that matches the Klingon noun-noun construction.  The word {Hoch} is a
perfect match for the noun "entirety", and your phrase quite directly
translates as {Soj Hoch}.

Your insistence on translating the verb {naQ} following a noun with an
English phrase that includes the word "of" is what frustrates me most.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level