[89088] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Fri Aug 19 20:10:19 2011
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711BDAADC@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
"one at a time"? "one after the other"?
-- ter'eS
--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
> From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
> Subject: RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
> To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 5:36 PM
> If I'm interpreting ngIq correctly,
> then here's one useful distinction between Hoch and ngIq:
>
> Hoch mu'mey vIyajbe'. ("I do not understand the group of
> words in its entirety.")
> = mu'mey vIyajbe'bogh tu'lu'.
> = There exist words [within the scope of this conversation]
> that I do not understand.
>
> ngIq mu'mey vIyajbe'. ("I non-understand every individual
> word of this group.")
> = mu'mey vIyajbogh tu'lu'be'.
> = There are no words [within the scope of this
> conversation] that I understand.
>
> SuQoch'a'.
> ________________________________________
> From: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
> [tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org]
> on behalf of Terrence Donnelly [terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 18:40
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> Subject: RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
>
> I understood it as "sole, single, only"
>
> -- ter'eS
>
> --- On Fri, 8/19/11, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> > Subject: RE: mu'mey chu': ngIq
> > To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org"
> <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> > Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 11:18 AM
> > jIyajbe' jIH je. <<
> > majority?, nearly all?>> 'oS mu' 'e' vIQub.
> > (Although how {ngIq} would differ from {HochHom}
> "most,
> > greater part" isn't clear.)
> >
> > --
> > Voragh
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: SuStel
> > >>
> > >> 'eybe'bogh mu'tlheghmeylIj vIyajbe'.
> yIQIjchu'.
> > "Current, not previous (n)"?
> > >>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
> > >
> > > ghe'naQ <'u'> bom mu'mey DIlaD 'ej DIchov.
> > > ghItlhDaq 'op mu'mey DISovpu'be'bogh DItu'.
> > > Soch mu' ghaj tetlh vIgherbogh.
> > > naDev wa' DIp vImuch: <ngIq>
> > >
> > > Qatlh mu'vam. loQ <Hoch> rur.
> > > cha' lo' chovnatlh DIlegh.
> > >
> > > wa' Doch nungchugh, le'chu' Dochvetlh. rurbogh
> latlh
> > tu'lu'be'.
> > > <nqIq voDleH wItoy'.>
> > > wa' voDleH neH tu'lu'. ghaH wItoy'.
> > >
> > > Doch law' nungchugh, ghu' rap SIQ Hoch Doch, pagh
> ta'
> > rap ta' Hoch Doch,
> > > 'ach quqbe'.
> > > le' Hoch Doch. SIQ/vang wa' ghIq SIQ/vang latlh
> ghIq
> > SIQ/vang latlh...
> > > <ngIq paqmey vIlaD.>
> > > paq wa'DIch vIlaD. vIlaDta'DI', paq veb vIlaD.
> tagha'
> > paq Qav vIlaD. reH wa'
> > > paq neH vIlaDlI'.
> > > <lomDaq tuy' ngIq
> > SuvwI'pu'.>
> > > tlheghDaq Qam SuvwI'pu'. Duv SuvwI' wa'DIch 'ej
> tuy'.
> > mej. Duv SuvwI' veD
> > > 'ej tuy'. mej. not tuy' cha' SuvwI'pu' quq.
> > >
> > > mobchugh <ngIq>, wa' le'chu'wI' 'oS 'e'
> vIloy,
> > 'ach DIch vIghajlaHbe'.
> > >
> > > -- ghunchu'wI'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
