tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 01 17:10:10 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
maj. HechlIj vIyaj. 'ach chay' pIm DIpmey tlhejbogh mu' {Hoch} mu' {naQ}je?
peHruS
David Trimboli wrote:
> > chup pagh:
> > >qo' Hoch 'oH Qujmaj yoS'e'
> > ><Hoch> placed after a noun means "All of X; the entirety of X".
> >
> > jathl Lily:
> > Where is this stated?
>
> It isn't. It's an inference which I and others have put forward, which
> seems to fit the facts. We have an example from one of the SkyBox cards
> (perhaps someone could cite the card number) of, I believe, {cha'maH wejDIch
> vatlh DIS poH HochHom} for "Most of the 23rd century." {HochHom} following
> the noun apparently means "most of <noun>." An obvious extension of this,
> therefore, is that {<noun> Hoch} means "all of <noun>," where we are
> referring to the entirety of a singular thing.
>
> I was going to say something when pagh said this, but I let it go by.
> Clearly this was a mistake. It isn't an "official" rule. It is what I
> consider to be the most likely rule.
>
> > 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.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 99833.0