tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 24 19:28:22 1999
[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
>sugar.
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'