[tlhIngan Hol] [tlhIngan-Hol] A question on {ngIq}

qurgh lungqIj qurgh at wizage.net
Wed Jun 8 19:31:26 PDT 2016

HochHom qechmeylIj vIQochbe'. Dun 'ej Daj 'ej Dochmey law' vIghojpu'. 'ach
DaH tIqqu' QIn vaj vIchIp.

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 7:54 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, so I have to partially retract/revise what I wrote above: moving
> a piece in chess may be a {tonSaw'} by itself in some contexts, or it
> may not; or it may be part of a more complicated {tonSaw'} consisting
> of several smaller atomic moves, spread over several turns.

I would argue that a single move in a game is not a technique in and of
itself, because it cannot exist independent of all the other moves in the
game, it could only be part of a technique involving multiple moves. Even
"Castling", which involves moving multiple pieces (the rook and the king)
is not a technique, it's just a single "move". Chess "openings" or
"defenses" would be examples of techniques in chess. They are a series of
specific moves.

馬後俥 sounds more like a strategy in western chess than a technique. I think
techniques need to be more specific than simply using two pieces to
threaten another piece (unless the pieces are always in the same spaces and
are of the same type). In western chess, the openings are list of moves
that specific pieces make. They are a set number of turns, and you end up
with a very specific setup of pieces.


> The plurality is indicated by the prefix {DI-} here. Is there
> something unusual about this? (I don't understand why you drew
> specific attention to the lack of plural suffix.)

I was noting it because, out of context, {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} could mean "He
used each fighting technique one by one".

The confusion this phrase caused was part of what helped fuel the
conversation. I believe it's what lead qunnoq to wonder why "a single X"
wasn't being used elsewhere. With the addition of the first half of of the
paragraph, it became clear why "a single X" was used in this case.

> I would say it's stronger than "most likely". I think if you're doing
> something to one thing out of five, and not to the other four, {ngIq}
> Dalo'be'nIS. :-)
I agree, for now, but I don't like to push my assumptions too far. Marc
could write something tomorrow that turns a "most likely" into a "almost
never" in a heartbeat! :D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160608/d7c1a1e5/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list