tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 23 08:41:33 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

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

Steven Boozer ([email protected])



ghunchu'wI':
> >If you can replace the word "all" by "entirety", do it that way:
> >{SuvwI' Hoch} "the entirety of the warrior", "the warrior's all".

Voragh:
>>ghunchu'wI' is spot on WRT how {Hoch} works, although his example {SuvwI'
>>Hoch}, though grammatical, sounds a bit odd.  Perhaps a more common way to
>>say this would be {SuvwI' naQ} "an entire warrior" using the quality {naQ}
>>"be full, be whole, be entire".  We have one example of {naQ} from the BoP
>>Poster:
>>
>>   cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq lo' law' bID choQ tu'lu'
>>   2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck     (KBoP)
>>
>>Note that here a full(-length) deck {choQ naQ} is compared with a half deck
>>{bID choQ}.  This makes sense if you've seen the poster.
>>
>>Finally there is another noun {Dol} "entity, a whole", used once in canon:
>>
>>   wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap
>>   We succeed together in a greater whole. (TKW p.209)
>>
>>   ["Do you know why we are so strong? Because we are a unit. Each
>>     of us is part of a greater whole."  (Kor, TOS "Errand of Mercy")]


ghunchu'wI':
>That's not quite the same thing.  {SuvwI' naQ} is talking about the
>warrior (who is whole).  It would contrast with a partial or broken
>warrior.  {SuvwI' Hoch} is talking about the whole (of the warrior).
>It would contrast with a part of a warrior.

You're certainly right WRT English usage, but how can you tell Klingon 
usage is the same based on our ONE example of {naQ} I cited above?  (I 
though we had more examples too, but we don't AFAIK.)  Also, how is this 
use of {Hoch} different from {Dol} - ?{SuvwI' Dol} - also used in only one, 
somewhat abstract, example?

>I did remember another useful example of {Hoch} in the second sense,
>from TKW: {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'} "all of the fuel has been expended."

Good example, though {nIn} "fuel" is a mass noun.  I'm not sure that ?{nIn 
naQ} "the whole/entire fuel" makes sense in either language.



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level