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

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Wed Jun 8 06:32:58 PDT 2016

```On 6 June 2016 at 18:04, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ngIq nuv luHoH
>> they killed the warriors one by one.
>
> This sentence is a perfect example to describe my confusion on {ngIq}
> ; I can't understand why the translation is given as "they killed the
> warriors one by one", and not as "they killed a single warrior".

Do you do any computer programming? If not, my explanation won't make
any sense to you, but {ngIq} is basically the "for-each" construction.

If we have a set of {nuvpu'} which is (A, B, C, D, E), then {ngIq nuv
luHoH} expands to: {A luHoH, B luHoH, C luHoH, D luHoH, E luHoH},
executed sequentially.

>> ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel
>> ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa'
>> ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may'
>> In one single move, he removed the hearts,
>> In one single move, he restored his honor,
>> In one single move, the battle was done.

{tonSaw'} refers to a single move executed in a fight. Since the set
of things iterated over by {ngIq} is singular, all the sentences are
referring to the one thing in the set.

Note that {ngIq} is used instead of {wa'} here, because with {wa'},
it's ambiguous whether those are three separate moves or not. With
{ngIq} and a noun indicating a set of one thing, it's clear that the
repetition refers to the same one thing.

> Here I understand the "one single move" translation, over the "one by
> one", because the latter makes no sense.
>
>> ngIq tonSaw' lo' SaD law' San chenmoH qeylIS wej
>> boghbogh nuvpu' San chenmoH
>> In one single move, Kahless decided the fate of
>> thousands, and those to come.
>
> Same here too.
>
>> nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI'
>> One by one Molor's scouts return
>
> Why "one by one" and not "a single scout of Molor returned alone" ?

Again, if Molor's set of scouts is (A, B, C, D, E), this expands to
{nIteb chegh A, nIteb chegh B, ...}.

>> ngIq raQ - 150 QaS
>> outposts cost 150 [forces] each
>
> Why {ngIq raQ}, and not {Hoch raQ} ? Why the {ngIq raQ} is given as
> "each outpost" instead of "a single outpost" ?

Because with {Hoch raQ}, it's potentially ambiguous whether the same
150 {QaS} pays for all outposts, or a different 150 {QaS} pays for
each outpost. (Of course, common sense would dictate that "each
output" is the right definition even with {Hoch raQ}, but with {ngIq}
it's unambiguously clear.)

As for the translation, when translating between languages there's not
a one-to-one mapping. Either "each outpost" or "a single outpost"
could be the translation of {ngIq raQ}. If it's certain that there is
only ever one {raQ} to be purchased, for example, then "a single
outpost" would be a better translation for {ngIq raQ}.

>> ngIq raQ - 200 QaS, mon - 200 QaS loS raQmey je
>> Outposts cost 200 [forces] each; capitals, 200 [forces]
>> each plus 4 outposts.
>
> Same here too.
>
>> ngIq raQvaD cha'maH vagh QaS yInob
>> For each outpost pay 25 forces.
>
> Same here too ; why "for each outpost", and not "for a single outpost" ?
>
>> ngIq gholvaD vaghmaH QaS yInob
>> Pay each player 50 forces.
>
>
>> ngIq gholvo' wa'maH QaS yItlhap
>> Collect 10 forces from every player.
>
> ..and again the same.

Again, it's to make clear that each player is treated separately and
sequentially.

> Now, ok ; I can leave with the fact that in the given translations
> "each" and "single", seemingly are used in a random and apparently
> interchangeable way.

It's not random. The "each" translation was used whenever the set of
things is expected to be (or is potentially) multiple, whereas the
"single" translation was used whenever it refers to a single item.

> But I really do have a problem - a major problem - with the sentences :
>
>> nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI'
>> One by one Molor's scouts return.
>> ngIq nuv luHoH
>> they killed the warriors one by one.
>
> Is there a rule here I'm missing ? Why, why, why "one by one" and not
> "a single one" ?

Because it's just what {ngIq} means.

> And to repeat my original question :
>
> If I wanted to write :
>
> "We destroyed his birds of prey one by one", then what should I write ?
>
> ngIq toQDujmeyDaj DIQaw'ta' ?
> or
> ngIq toQDujmeyDaj wIQaw'ta' ?

I don't think {ngIq} can go in front of a plural noun. At least, it
doesn't make any sense to me the way it's been used so far. So I'd
write {ngIq toQDujDaj wIQaw'ta'}.

--
De'vID

```