tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 07 18:49:46 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Did Hoch, now pagh...
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, De'vID jonwI' wrote:
> > "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)
My words list offers /HochHom/ for "most, majority", but I'm not sure
where it came from. Given that, I would say that /tlhInganpu' HochHom/
would convey "Most Klingons", which I would say has the same basic
connotation as "Not all".
> Well you can sidestep the issue by recasting as:
> <rol ghajbe' 'op tlhInganpu'>
> "Some Klingons do not have a beard."
/rol ghaj tlhInganpu' HochHom/
"Most Klingons have a beard."
> <rol ghaj Hoch tlhIngan>
> "Each Klingon (individually) has a beard."
>
> <rol ghaj Hoch tlhInganpu'>
> "All Klingons (as a group) have beards."
Maybe it's a bad example of context, but I don't see much difference here;
but perhaps that's just because the idea of "having a beard" doesn't lend
itself to communal sharing... :)
> <rol ghajbe' Hoch tlhInganpu'>
> "All Klingons (as a group) do not have beards."
> Or: *"Not all Klingons have a beard." (possibly ambiguous)
The English is not equivalent to each other, I don't see this as a
solution.
The underlying problem is connotation; In English, we employ a number of
phrases that connote a certain sense of "percentage". Here are some
examples:
"Not all X are Y"
"Most X are not Y"
"Some X are Y"
"Few X are Y"
"Most X are Y"
These all indicate that there are exceptions within the realm of Y; the
actual precentage is based on connotation. The last example is definitely
a majority; the word "most" specifically has that definition. But I'd bet
most people have a perception of percentage with the others. "Some X"
probably denotes more than a very minor quantity, while "Few X" tends to
be used for smaller percentages.
Moving to Klingon, we have a few words that work in the this manner.
/HochHom/ we have for "most", /'op/ for "some (but there's a note that
it's really an "unknown quantity" -- so it may not have a connotate so
much of majority/minority, so much as a connotation of uncertainty), and
/pagh/ for "none". There are also the verb/adjectives /law'/ and /puS/
for "many" and "few".
The further complication is relating the descriptive to a specific set;
there is a difference between saying "no Klingon" and "none _of the_
Klingons", and that difference is important. We've got canonical evidence
of /Hoch/ being used after a noun to indicate the latter case, and we can
extrapolate that /'op/ and the construct /HochHom/ could also be employed
similarly to achieve the same grammatical effect.
Trouble arises with /pagh/. The problem is that it also happens to be a
number, and we have distinct directive in terms of translating numbers
based on their position in relation to their core noun. /pagh pu'/ is
"zero phasers" or "no phaser", and /pu' pagh/ is "phaser #0". I put forth
that /pagh/ could be used in similar ways as /Hoch/, but we end up with an
ambiguity; /pu' pagh/ could be "Phaser Zero" -or- "None of the phaser".
Dipping into the realm of fantasy here, I think there could be made a good
argument that the Klingon counting system is 1-based, not zero-based, and
so they would never actually number something "zero" (ie. no "Patient
Zero" kinds of things). If we make that "guess", we open up /pagh/ for a
lot of things -- /pu' pagh/ becomes unambiguously "none of the phaser",
and perhaps we even open up the possibility of /pu' paghHom/ "almost none
of the phaser".
Given that, we can cover a decent range of quantity:
Hoch -> HochHom -> 'op -> paghHom -> pagh
All -> Most -> Some -> Little -> None
Any other ideas/insights?
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there
is no path and leave a trail." -- Muriel Strode
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}