tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 18 15:31:34 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

using {Hoch} (was Re: Wool? In tlhIngan Hol?)

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

On Jul 18, 2007, at 8:40 AM, McArdle wrote:

> What I was trying to write is "all the honored
> warriors".  I was under the impression that it {Hoch}
> would be used in noun-noun constructions as the second
> of the pair, as if "all of warriors", but I find
> through further Googling that TKW (which, to my shame,
> I don't have) says it comes first.  Also it slipped my
> mind that the verb prefix {vI-} doesn't indicate
> whether the object is singular or plural.  I should
> have written {Hoch SuvwI'pu' quv}.
>
> I was led astray, by the way, by the canon sentence
> {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH},
> translated "it remained in use for most of the 23rd
> century".  What is the grammatical relation between
> {HochHom} and {vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej} if not a
> noun-noun construction "most of century #23"?
> Shouldn't {HochHom}, which is just the diminutive of
> {Hoch}, work grammatically the same way as {Hoch}
> does?  (Yes, I know, languages aren't always logical.)

There seems to be a distinction between "counting" and "partitive"  
usage.

Counting:  KGT makes clear that "all warriors" is {Hoch SuvwI'pu},  
with the {Hoch} coming first. We also have examples of {pagh} and  
{'op} working the same way.  I would translate "most warriors" as  
{HochHom SuvwI'pu'}.

Partitive:  If you're talking about "all of" a single thing, it looks  
like the {Hoch} comes second.  The {HochHom} example is the best  
evidence I know of to support that interpretation.  If you can  
replace the word "all" by "entirety", do it that way: {SuvwI' Hoch}  
"the entirety of the warrior", "the warrior's all".

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level