tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 23:07:57 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hoch

In a message dated 2/22/1999 8:43:55 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< ja' peHruS:
 >I agree that {naQ roj} is a valid sentence.  I do not claim that {naQ} can
 >only be a verb (functioning as an adjective to use the English grammar
 >terminology) following a noun.
<<<<< I give up.  I really do.  I thought that by giving the relevant examples
 and presenting explanations I considered to be clear and easily followed
 I could actually get you to see what I was talking about.  But now I see
 that you think {naQ} following a noun can be something other than a verb.
 That explains why you think {roj naQ} could mean "all of the peace" --
 even though it fails to explain why you think {naQ} following a noun can
 be anything other than a verb meaning "be complete".>>>>>>

wejpuH!  You are taking the definition you want from among all those given in
There are more than "be complete."  Please note "be whole," "be fulll," "be

That I think {naQ} following a noun can be anything other than a verb is a
fabrication of your own imagination.  I used it as a verb myself,
parenthetically showing that in this position it is an adjective in English
grammar terminology.
  >My difficulty was in the connotation brought forth in English
 >about a chemical substance being incomplete somehow.  Even the Klingon word
 >{HutlhHa'} seems preferable.
 It doesn't seem to fit the idea from where I'm looking.  How would you
 use {HutlhHa'} to describe an incomplete substance or object?

Actually, I would use {Hutlh} or {ngaSbe'} or possible {ghajbe'}.  

Let's try:  'ay' Hutlhbogh Doch.  Dom ghajbe'bogh qut.

<<< The verb {naQ} means "be complete" -- that's its definition.  So the word
 {naQbe'} obviously means something like "not be complete", doesn't it? >>


And, that comes across as "not be all there."  It is "not whole."  It is not

The problem, I reiterate, is that a cookie without frosting is still "whole,
entire, complete, full(ly present)."  Just because it is lacking the frosting
which you like to like off the top of the cookie (I presume to surmise), does
not make it {naQbe'} in my understanding of the TKD glosses of {naQ}.  Rather,
it is *frosting* ghajbe'.


Back to archive top level