[tlhIngan Hol] {neH} as in "the only"

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> This is very interesting. Could this mean that we could say {puq mob} for "only child"?


I think it would be highly contextual. When talking about the constitution of a family, talking about the {puq mob} might well refer to an only child. However, if you were to say something like {wa' puqDaj mob ngeHta' joH'a'}, I think it could just as well be interpreted as "The LORD sent one of his children, and no one else."


I don't think there is sufficient canonical backing to make any far-reaching conclusions, but the one canonical discussion of {X mob} that I'm aware of concerns the story where ghunchu'wI' ordered {bIQ neH} at a restaurant, and Marc Okrand suggested that what he really wanted was {bIQ mob}:

https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/July/msg00127.html

In this case, it would not make sense to interpret {X mob} as "the only existing X", as that would mean ordering the only water the restaurant had.


//loghaD

________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of D qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 4:32:55 PM
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {neH} as in "the only"

ghunchu'wI':
> jonta' mob

This is very interesting. Could this mean that we could say {puq mob} for "only child"?

--
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220704/92597e08/attachment-0003.htm>