tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 01 13:12:08 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:09:14 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <002601bf23fc$e1f4a2a0$59de173f@ras>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:05:39 -0500 David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Pagh, if you wanted to suggest "All of X", wouldn't it be better to stick
> to
> > Krankor's suggestion of naQ instead?
> >
> > jathl Krankor (HolQeD, Vol5,2:3):
> > >Hoch chabmey Soppu'!
> > >"He ate all of the pies!" but not "He ate all of the pie!" While it is
> > >possible that Hoch could also be used in this way, it is probably still
> > >safer at present to use <naQ> - "be full, whole, entire." Thus,
> > chab naQ Soppu'!
>
>
> Here's the problem with this: {chab naQ} "entire pie" is the same as
> {naQbogh chab} "pie which is entire." You are describing the state of the
> pie, not what portion of a pie is eaten. I do not easily accept Krankor's
> "safer" alternative.
Of course, this is good for stating that you ate the entire pie
without slicing it first or biting off any pieces. In English,
you have to use the far less efficient "in one bite" pile of
helper words.
> SuStel
> Stardate 99833.0
charghwI'