[89136] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'mey chu': ngIq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Mon Aug 22 01:36:43 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:29:54 +1000
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ghItlhpu' Qov, jatlh:
>latlh chovnatlh vIlaD.
> ngIq nuv luHoH
>mughmeH navDaq ghItlhlu "They killed them one-by-one."
teHchu'. To add to that, a couple of us did ask if {lu-} was the appropriate
pronominal prefix in this example (given the gloss of "they killed *them* one
by one"), and Marc confirmed explicitly that it is correct.
To add my two cents into the discussion about {ngIq}, I specifically recall
Marc saying that {ngIq} meant something like (I quote) "each, but not every". I
asked whether the sense could be seen as more distributive than {Hoch}: that is,
each one of a group on its own, or separately - and he seemed to affirm that,
but from the examples in the libretto I do get the feeling that the sense of
sequence seems to be key too: the other example given by ghunchu'wI', {ngIq
voDleH wItoy'} "we serve each emperor (in turn)", supports that idea (opposed
to, say, {Hoch voDleH wItoy'} "we serve each emperor (simultaneously)"?).
With that said, I can't quite grasp how {ngIq nuv luHoH} and {ngIq nuvpu' HoH}
might conceivably differ in sense. The idea of a number of individuals standing
in a line that ghunchu'wI' talks about with {lomDaq tuy' ngIq SuvwI'pu'} seems
to me to be little different from the concept embodied with the singular form
in {ngIq nuv luHoH} "they killed the people one-by-one", from the part Qov,
pagh and I read. ghunchu'wI', are the examples you gave of {ngIq} with plural
nouns taken from the libretto?
QeS 'utlh
