[tlhIngan Hol] how is the {mapIm ngIq maH} correct ?

[SuStel]

On 10/2/2019 10:37 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
> > As with all noun-noun constructions, it's
> > the final noun in the series that
> > determines what "thing" you're talking
> > about. Here, maH is acting like a noun
> > and is the final noun. So the phrase ngIq
> > maH each of us individually is in the first
> > person.
>
> So, I guess one could say too {Hoch maH} for "all us".
>
> So, I could say too {tlhIngan Hol wIparHa' Hoch maH}, for "we all like 
> klingon".
>
> Right ?

Maybe.

But what does *Hoch maH* actually mean? Sure, the English translation of 
*Hoch* and *maH* are /all/ and /us,/ but when you put them together, 
what do they mean? After all, you said /we all/ instead of /all we./

*Hoch X* means you take the set of X's and consider each one as 
separately doing the action. *Hoch Xmey/Du'/pu'* means you take the set 
of X's and consider them as doing the action collectively.

But what if X is a mass noun? Suppose you say *Hoch bIQ.* You're 
considering each water separately doing the action? You can say *bIQ 
Hoch* to mean the entirety of the water, but that's got *Hoch* as the 
"thing" of the noun-noun construction.

So go back to *Hoch maH.* Do you take the set of /us-es/ as each /us 
/performing the action? Do you take the set of all /us-es/ as performing 
the action collectively? Shouldn't you instead use *maH Hoch* /the 
entirety of us,/ which is a third-person phrase?

Klingons may or may not say *Hoch maH,* but you can't clearly derive it 
by any grammatical rules we already know. The individual words 
translation individually into something we'd say in English, but that's 
not how translation really works.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191002/7d1ea4bb/attachment.htm>