tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 31 16:06:22 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hoch

> 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
> 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.

Stardate 99833.0

Back to archive top level