[tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"

Sun Jan 28 04:12:15 PST 2018

loghaD:
> «maH Hoch» = all/each of us, without exception (useful for
> describing unanimous vs. collective decisions and the like)

I was under the impression that using {Hoch} directly after a plural noun,
meant "all of the.." , being able to convey only a plural meaning.

For example {chabmey Hoch} "all of the pies"; {chabmey Hoch DISopta'} "we
ate all of the pies".

On the other hand, placing Hoch after a singular noun, means "all of
the..", expressing a singular meaning. {chab Hoch wISopta'} "we ate all of
the pie".

The "each" meaning, is expressed only if we place the {Hoch} in front of a
singular noun. {Hoch chab wISopta'} "we ate each pie".

So, I can't understand how writing {maH Hoch} could mean "each of us".

~ nI'ghma

On Jan 28, 2018 13:57, "Felix Malmenbeck" <felixm at kth.se> wrote:

> I wonder if «Hoch maH» and «maH Hoch» might be somewhat different.
>
> We normally use «X Hoch» for "all X" and «X Hoch» for "the entirety of X".
> So, I'm thinking:
>
> «Hoch maH» = all possible "us"es (if that's a sensible concept); perhaps a
> particularly large in-group (such referring to a whole species or
> civilization; "ALL of us are made of starstuff.")
>
> «maH Hoch» = all/each of us, without exception (useful for describing
> unanimous vs. collective decisions and the like)
>
> «maH Hoch» is interesting in that it could perhaps be singular, making it
> unlike «maH» in both person and number.
>
> //loghaD
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of
> mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 28, 2018 12:49:08 PM
> *To:* tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> *Subject:* Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"
>
> Thank you all for replying.
>
> Reading your replies, I learned something important, something which
> eluded me so far.
>
> I didn't know that in a noun-noun construction, where the second noun is
> {Hoch} or {HochHom}, that this second noun is the head-noun. All this time
> I believed, that some special rules apply, with regards to the {Hoch} and
> {HochHom}. But apparently they don't, so I learned something important,
> thanks.
>
> However, as Rhona Fenwick pointed out, why not use {Hoch maH} ?
>
> Even if {maH Hoch} indeed violates the accord rule, the {Hoch maH} evades
> the accord problem, so everything is ok.
>
> So, unless someone disagrees with Rhona, I will be using {Hoch maH}, which
> I like a lot.
>
> Thank you QeS, for sharing this idea.
>
> ~ nI'ghma
>
> On Jan 28, 2018 10:04, "Rhona Fenwick" <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlhpu':
>
> > Sometime ago, I had asked of a way to say "all of us", as if in "all of
> us like cats".
>
> (poD vay')
>
> > {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch} ?
> > all of us love cats
>
> As others have pointed out, since the head of the phrase *maH Hoch* is
> still *Hoch*, it should condition third-person agreement.
>
> With that said, I think that it should not be *maH Hoch* as nIqolay
> suggests, but *Hoch maH*. *Hoch* thus acts as a normal quantifier for its
> nominal (in this case, pronominal) head. For instance, we know *Hoch
> nuvpu'* is "all of the people", and we also know from *paq'batlh* that *Hoch
> negh* is "all of the soldiers" (*paq'raD* 11.21), and it's only a very
> small step to go from these to *Hoch maH*, which should take first-person
> plural agreement. We don't have any canon examples, but I feel it's a
> natural extension of the properties of both *Hoch* and pronouns as
> outlined in TKD 5.1. I don't think it's the least bit unnatural to say, for
> instance, *targh DIparHa' 'op maH 'ach vIghro' DIparHa' Hoch maH* "some
> of us like targs, but all of us like cats".
>
> Whether we can leave out the free pronoun *maH* to give the same meaning
> is, of course, an entirely different kettle of *qagh*. Many pro-drop
> languages permit this: Georgian, Turkish, Finnish and Spanish, at least.
> But we can't in good conscience assume that Klingon also does this, not
> least because Klingon seems to be more rigid with its targets of agreement
> than many Earth languages are.
>
>
> jangpu' SuStel, jatlh:
>
> > The fierceness with which people desire a y'all in Klingon horrifies
> me. This is no different.
>
>
> I disagree strongly. Not only are the conversational implicatures of
> speaking *to* a bunch of people versus speaking *on behalf of* a bunch of
> people quite different, but a vast array of human languages with rigidly
> defined number agreement are quite happy to allow plural pronouns of all
> sorts to be quantified. What's more, in Klingon there's nothing we know
> explicitly about either *maH* or *Hoch* that should in principle get in
> the way of our using them together should the situation call for it. The
> *only* problem we have is that we just don't have an explicit canon
> example illustrating how or whether Klingon quantifies pronouns, though I
> believe we have enough information about both quantifiers and free pronouns
> to be able to extrapolate (in the absence of a contradictory formal rule,
> at least).
>
>
> Also, no less a speaker than Seqram consciously lampshaded the "all of
> us" question at the end of his article about *Hoch* more than two decades
> ago (*HolQeD* 5:2.11), so with all due respect (and I do have much
> respect for you), maybe ease up a bit on being horrified.
>
>
> QeS 'utlh
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180128/f1173906/attachment-0016.htm>