tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 22 09:20:33 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: John and I go...

This is an interesting thread. This issue of the conflict between the 
grammatical singularity of {Hoch} and the plural, first person prefix within 
what had been a commonly accepted {majaH Hoch} is refreshing to stumble over. 
It is always good to think anew about old things.

Meanwhile, I see less of a conflict with {majaH Hoch maH}. The pronoun {maH} is 
grammatically plural, so likely it would be translated as, "Each of us goes." 
The difference in meaning between "Each of us" and "All of us" is, by itself a 
topic worthy of discussion, but if that is the problem, why not get totally 
strange? Consider:

majaH Hoch jIH.

The natural modification to be more accurate and awkward might be:

majaH jIH, Hoch SoH je.

This might also give us the means of differentiating between the inclusive and 
exclusive first person plural:

majaH jIH Hoch ghaH je.

And just to be rediculously accurate on the inclusive first person plural:

majaH jIH, SoH, Hoch chaH je.

I considered {majaH jIH, SoH, Hoch ghaH je,} but it strikes me that if I'm 
singling out first person singular and second person singular, then it is more 
appropriate to refer to "each" of the others than "all" of the others. But 
that's just a random synapse.

I'm sure Okrand would just laugh and roll his eyes at all of this. "I'll get 
back to you on that."


> From: "Andrew Strader" <>
> > SuStel wrote:
> >> There is no evidence that you can say */majaH torgh/ (let's use a Klingon
> >> name).  The correct way of saying it is /majaH jIH torgh je/.  I believe
> >> we've had an example (I can't cite it) with "pronoun noun je" as subject.
> >
> > Can't cite it? Tsk tsk.
> Not when I'm answer the e-mail at work, no.
> > Nonetheless I think it is premature to say that
> > ??majaH torgh?? is out-and-out wrong.
> I didn't say it was wrong, I said there was no evidence for it.
> > >wouldn't be opposed to /majaH Hoch maH/, because /Hoch maH/ is
> (apparently)
> > >a plural 1st person phrase.
> >
> > Really?!! I would really like to know if THIS is canonical.
> No, it isn't.  That's why I added the "apparently."
> I say that it seems to work to me because /Hoch <something>/ means "each
> <something>."  If "something" has to be a noun and not a pronoun, I don't
> think we have that information.  Now, I can certainly see a problem with the
> idea of "each us" (how many "us"'s are there?); maybe /maH Hoch/ "all of us,
> the entirety of us" would make more sense.
> > I could
> > not accept "Hoch maH" without canonical support; it just seems too
> arbitrary
> > and too probably an Anglicism.
> I don't really approve of /Hoch maH/ either, however I find it odd that
> you're willing to accept /majaH torgh/ over it.  Just because something may
> be less similar to English does not give it credence.
> SuStel
> Stardate 2306.7

Back to archive top level