tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 24 19:28:22 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hoch

ja' peHruS:
>Still, if I have a pie with apples, shortening, flour, etc., it is "complete"
>to me.  But, it does not have sugar, which [perhaps] you feel necessary for
>the pie to be complete.  For both of us, the pie has not yet been cut.  {chab
>pe'lu'be'} {vaj naQ chab}.  With or without the sugar it is complete because
>it has not been cut.  Some of you (all of you except me?) claim that {naQ}
>would not refer to the uncut pie because it is incomplete while it lacks

If the context of the situation suggests that it's the cutting that makes
the distinction between a complete pie and an incomplete pie, fine.  If a
judge is tasting pies to determine whether they were made following some
special recipe, the distinction is between a pie having all ingredients
and one with something missing.  What is actually meant by a pie being
"complete" is up to the person making the judgement of completeness.

But in neither case would I accept {chab naQ} as "all of the pie", which
is the original mistaken concept I was trying to point out and fix with
examples and explanations and descriptions.

>No, I still think "be whole, be entire" refers to the uncut condition.  No
>piece is missing.  Not even the fact that I eat pie without sugar does not
>mean that I am eating an incomplete pie.

You appear to have understood the argument.  Like most other verbs used in
an adjectival sense, it refers to the *condition* of the pie, and not the
*amount* of pie.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level