[tlhIngan Hol] relative clauses with {Hoch} in noun-noun constructions

[SuStel]

On 1/6/2020 1:26 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2020, at 11:00 AM, SuStel<sustel at trimboli.name>  wrote:
>> I don't think we've ever seen Hoch X mean anything other than each X,...
> I lack the time to seek it out using my iPad, but I recall something Marc Okrand said about fax machines and telephones, where {Hoch nav HablI'} was potentially ambiguous. It could mean “each fax machine” or “everyone’s fax machine (i.e. the general-use one)”. I hope someone can give a better reference to the discussion.

Here it is: http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-06-holqed-05-2-c.txt

Okrand says that *Hoch nav HablI'* works for /everyone's fax machine,/ 
but it's problematical because it could be interpreted as /all (the) fax 
machines/.* He offers *le'be'* /be unexceptional, nonspecific /as an 
alternative that cannot be misinterpreted this way.

* Both this text and the information about *Hoch X* vs. *Hoch Xmey* were 
revealed in the same issue of /HolQeD/ in June 1996. Since *Hoch nav 
HablI'* means /each fax machine/ and not /all fax machines,/ I can't 
tell whether this is an error or he just hadn't worked out the 
difference yet.

So yes, *Hoch* can be used as a normal noun in a noun-noun construction 
and not be interpreted as /all/each X./

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200106/df9fb16f/attachment.htm>