[3036] in tlhIngan-Hol
{-moH}; syntax of Hoch
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Feb 8 10:29:10 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:04:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: mark's message of Mon, 07 Feb 94 14:00:11 EST <9402071400.A01301@d
ragonsys.COM>
>From: mark <mark@dragonsys.COM>
>Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 14:00:11 EST
>marqoS maH HochvaD je Dochvam ghItlh charghwI':
>* * *
>> Good point, though {neH} does not begin a sentence like other
>> adverbials. It FOLLOWS the word it modifies, be it noun or verb
>> (TKD 5.4, page 56-57). As for the disambiguity, how about:
>>
>> Dujmey HochvaD wa' HoD neH ghajtaH wa' Duj
>* * *
>Would a Klingon necessarily use the -mey? Hoch makes the plural
>meaning clear.
Well-taken. They -mey is optional, nobody's wrong for using it, though
perhaps you're right that it's overused.
>Speaking of Hoch, what canonical indications do we have of how to
>use it to modify another noun? It is glossed as "everyone, all,
>everything (n)". In the above sentence charghwI' puts it after
>the noun it quantifies. I've used it and, I think, seen it used
>(in this group) before the noun. The same question goes for
>latlh and probably a bunch of other similar words.
There was a bit of discussion about this already, and while it sounds
English to do it this way, it really makes sense from a Klingon (and
other-language) perspective. "Duj Hoch" is a noun-noun construction,
meaning "The ships' all", that is, "all of the ships". It's the "Hoch",
the "everything", the "totality", that is associated with the ships; that
is, the totality which they comprise: all of them. We say "all of them" in
English, Hebrew uses genitive constructions of the noun for "all" as well.
It also just makes sense, at least to me. I'd also use "Hochchaj" for "all
of them" (whether or not it's Hochma' or Hochmaj is another question; I'm
not 100% sure, I'd probably go with Hochma'). Similarly for "latlh":
"Hivje' latlh" is "the glass' other one", an "other one" that is associated
with the glass; presumably something other than the glass under discussion.
Pragmatics would likely imply another glass. If you want to be picky, you
could use "HIvje' pIm" (different glass) or better, "rapbe'bogh
HIvje'/Hivje' rapbe'", but I don't know that it's really necessary.
~mark
>- marqem
