tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 24 21:12:14 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: using {Hoch} (was Re: Wool? In tlhIngan Hol?)
ja' Voragh:
> 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 don't understand what the problem is. {naQ} "be full, whole,
entire, complete" is a straightforward Klingon verb. As a verb of
quality, it acts in the manner of an English adjective when it
follows a noun, describing the noun. That means that {SuvwI' naQ} is
a {SuvwI'}.
{Hoch} "everyone, all, everything" is a noun. When it follows
another noun, the first noun acts to describe it. That means that
{SuvwI' Hoch} is a {Hoch}.
The only odd thing is the "all/each" meaning that {Hoch} carries when
it precedes another noun, but such usage is clearly explained for us.
> (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?
{Dol} is something all by itself. The translation "whole" is
informed by context, not by the inherent meaning of the word.
{SuvwI' Dol} means neither more nor less than "warrior's/fighter's
entity" (referring to a specific warrior rather than the idea of
warriorhood). It is a {Dol}, not a {SuvwI'}.
> Good example, though {nIn} "fuel" is a mass noun.
That's why it works with a following {Hoch}. It doesn't get counted;
it gets measured and/or subdivided.
> I'm not sure that ?{nIn naQ} "the whole/entire fuel" makes sense in
> either language.
It makes sense to me. A whole fuel is one that works as it is. It
contrasts with a non-whole or incomplete fuel, which requires another
component -- perhaps a catalyst, perhaps another chemical -- before
it can yield useful energy. Kerosene is a {nIn naQ}. Dry calcium
carbide is a {nIn naQbe'}, unable to burn until it is reacted with
water to produce acetylene.
-- ghunchu'wI'