tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 12 16:39:12 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: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:38:32 -0500
- Bcc:
De'vID:
>> <rol ghaj Hoch tlhIngan>
>> "Each Klingon (individually) has a beard."
>>
>> <rol ghaj Hoch tlhInganpu'>
>> "All Klingons (as a group) have beards."
...Paul:
>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... :)
But I do think the emphasis is slightly different:
<mIv tuQ Hoch ghojwI'>
"Each student wears a helmet."
<mIv tuQ Hoch ghojwI'pu>
"Every student wears a helmet."
In the first case, it might be some kind of fashion (like earrings).
In the second case, it seems to express that this is a property of
students, i.e. it's part of a student's uniform.
BTW how does the <lu-> prefix work when using <Hoch X[-pu']>?
De'vID:
>> <rol ghajbe' Hoch tlhInganpu'>
>> "All Klingons (as a group) do not have beards."
>> Or: *"Not all Klingons have a beard." (possibly ambiguous)
... Paul:
>The English is not equivalent to each other, I don't see this as a
>solution.
Well, okay, my English translation didn't quite capture the sense
I thought the Klingon might have. Instead of "All Klingons (as a group)
do not have beards", how about: "It is not the case that {All Klingons
(as a group) have beards}"? Does that make the two equivalent,
then? As I said, this is possibly ambiguous. The question is, does
<-be'> negate the verb or the sentence? Actually it probably
negates just the verb, so you're right, my second English sentence
isn't the same as the Klingon.
... Paul:
>...
>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".
If <-be'> unambiguously negated the verb, then you could always use
<V-be'> with <X Hoch> to say "None of X is/does V". I would understand
<X pagh> to mean "none of X" in context, but some contexts are
ambiguous.
... Paul:
>...
>Given that, we can cover a decent range of quantity:
>
>Hoch -> HochHom -> 'op -> paghHom -> pagh
>All -> Most -> Some -> Little -> None
What about <'op'a'> and <'opHom>? Or <Hoch'a'> and <pagh'a'>?
Could these mean anything?
--
De'vID
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. 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