tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 07 16:01:23 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Did Hoch, now pagh...
- From: "De'vID jonwI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Did Hoch, now pagh...
- Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:00:43 -0500
- Bcc:
qon Quvar:
>At the qepHom, we also talked about the word {Hoch}, related to the
>question,
>if one could attach {-be'}
>to a noun like {Hoch}, meaning "not all". The answer is NO of course, but
>how
>do you say
>
> "Not all Klingons have a beard"
> (i.e. most do have, but not all)
>
>without getting the phrase
> "All Klingons don't have a beard."
> (i.e. no klingon has a beard)
>
>Do you see the problem?
>Any problem??
>ambiguity?
Well you can sidestep the issue by recasting as:
<rol ghajbe' 'op tlhInganpu'>
"Some Klingons do not have a beard."
Okay, that's cheating. But how about the following analysis:
<rol ghaj Hoch tlhIngan>
"Each Klingon (individually) has a beard."
<rol ghajbe' Hoch tlhIngan>
"Each Klingon (individually) does not have a beard."
Or: "No Klingon has a beard."
<rol ghaj Hoch tlhInganpu'>
"All Klingons (as a group) have beards."
<rol ghajbe' Hoch tlhInganpu'>
"All Klingons (as a group) do not have beards."
Or: *"Not all Klingons have a beard." (possibly ambiguous)
Doesn't the last one mean what you want? The way I would
understand <rol ghajbe' Hoch tlhInganpu'> would be "Not
all Klingons have a beard, i.e. some do, but not all.".
For "all Klingons do not have a beard", i.e. "no Klingon has
a beard", I would understand that as <rol ghajbe' Hoch
tlhIngan>. Although the suggested sentence could *possibly*
be interpreted ambiguously. What do others think?
--
De'vID
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines