<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/14/2020 11:17 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I think SuStel’s analysis is perfectly rational and probably
correct, though we probably don’t have specific canon to be 100%
sure that {Hoch} works like this when combined with a noun with a
verb used adjectivally. I’d probably replace “all-ness” with
“whole” for clarity in the English explanation, since it’s a more
commonly used English word that means the same thing, but
“all-ness” works just fine. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>I used the word <i>all-ness</i> specifically to avoid problems
with the interpretation of the word <i>all</i><i>, </i>which is
both noun and adjective in English. (The word <i>whole</i> has
the same problem.) Of course <i>all-ness</i> isn't what you'd
actually say in English; that's not the point. It illustrates the
meaning of the Klingon better, that's all. Once explained, you can
go back to a normal translation. mayqel wasn't looking for a
clearer English translation; he was asking for the difference
between two Klingon phrases, and the difference between their
translations <i>the whole big pie</i> and <i>the big whole pie</i>
doesn't illustrate which is correct.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class="">The TKD gloss doesn’t contain either “whole” or
“all-ness” and boQwI’ offers no canon examples of {Hoch}
following another noun. I think I remember that Okrand’s
explanation of how {Hoch} works when following a noun used the
word “whole”, but my memory is imperfect, net Sov.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><i>paq'batlh:</i> <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>chalqachlIj rachlu'ta'bogh tutDaq<br>
mol'egh betleH<br>
muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch</b></p>
<p><i>The bat'leth sunk into the post<br>
Of your fortified tower,<br>
All his rage focused in one blow</i><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The relevant phrase is <b>QeHDaj Hoch</b><i> all his rage.</i></p>
<p>Okrand explained what <b>Hoch</b> means preceding a noun, but
not what it means following a noun. We also have <b>HochHom </b>following
a noun to mean <i>most of the noun.</i> We also understand what a
noun-noun construction means: the second noun is the thing you're
talking about, and the first noun is narrowing its sense to the
set of things described by itself. <b>chab Hoch</b> is <i>all</i>
as a noun, or <i>all-ness,</i> and the <b>chab</b> means that
the all-ness is that subset of <u>all-ness</u><u> </u>that has
to do with pies. It is <i>pie-allness.</i> It is all of the pie.
It's not the pie itself; it's the all-ness of the pie, the
wholeness of the pie.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class="">If you want to be 100% safe against Okrand later
surprising us by invalidating this very reasonable
interpretation of what {Hoch} does when combined with an
adjective, you can dodge the entire issue by using the adjective
as a verb with {-bogh}, as in {tInbogh chab Hoch}. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is true, but probably not necessary. If you accept <b>Hoch</b>
being modified by the noun phrase <b>tInbogh chab,</b> I see no
reason why you wouldn't accept <b>Hoch</b> being modified by the
noun phrase <b>chab tIn.</b> Throughout all of Klingon, noun
phrases participate in the grammar exactly as single nouns do.
Both are simply following known rules.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class="">Okrand has used this mechanism for expressing
adjectives in the past to avoid overloading grammatical
constructions he prefers to keep simple, like using multiple
adjectives on the same noun,</div>
</blockquote>
<p>We don't know that he did that to keep things simple. He may have
done it because he decided that's the way it is done: one verb
modifier per noun (or noun phrase). We don't <i>know</i> this is
a rule, because you can't show usage evidence for a negative rule,
and Okrand hasn't declared any such rule. We've just never seen
this happen. But the fact that we get things like <b>SuDbogh
Dargh 'ej wovbogh</b> instead of <b>Dargh SuD wov</b> or <b>Dargh
SuD 'ej wov</b> suggests that multiple verbs might not be
allowed to modify a noun. It just suggests it. It certainly
doesn't give us Okrand's thinking, so we can't extend Okrand's
thinking that he didn't tell us to other areas.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class=""> and to some extent, {Hoch} following a noun is very
nearly behaving like an adjective. It’s behaving like an
adjective as much as any noun can do. It’s a whole pie, not a
half pie, and the word order tells us it’s not “all pies”.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I said to think of <b>Hoch</b> as <i>all-ness</i> because <i>all</i>
can be a noun or an adjective in English (and so can <i>whole</i>),
and using <i>all</i> keeps the correct word order obscure. I used
<i>all-ness</i> purely to force the word into noun form, so that
the correct meaning of each word order was unambiguous for
illustration purposes.</p>
<p>In other words, the English translation confuses the meaning of
what is a fairly straightforward Klingon noun-noun construction.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class="">We’re pretty sure you can’t say *chab tIn ‘ey*, but
you can say {tInbogh chab ‘ey} or {‘eybogh chab tIn} or use two
or more adjectives with {-bogh}, though I don’t trust myself to
get that right without studying the canon first. [Something like
{Xbogh, Ybogh je SuvwI’} faintly echoes in my mind.] <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That last construction only occurs in one song, and doesn't
follow known rules. Instead, we can say <b>tInbogh chab 'ej
'eybogh</b> or <b>tInbogh 'ej 'eybogh chab.</b> I'm not sure if
the form of <b>tInbogh chab 'ey</b> or <b>'eybogh chab tIn</b>
has ever been used in canon, though it's perfectly grammatical.
However, it has issues of its own: is a <b>tInbogh chab 'ey</b><i>
</i>a <b>tInbogh chab</b> that is <b>'ey</b> or a <b>chab 'ey</b>
which is <b>tIn?</b> Is it <b>[tInbogh chab] 'ey</b> or <b>tInbogh
[chab 'ey]?</b> This might matter, as it tends to show which
quality is more tightly associated with the noun. What if you want
the qualities to be equally important to the noun?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class="">The point here is that Okrand has avoided using two
adjectives on one noun, preferring to keep the grammar simpler
for forming that noun-adjective phrase, allowing only one
adjective.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, you don't know his preferences or his reasons for not
having adjectivally modified one noun with two verbs. You can't
extrapolate new rules using this supposed preference.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class=""> Maybe this idea, which was not revealed to us until
many years after TKD, also applies to {Hoch} following a noun,
and Okrand hasn’t revealed this yet. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>When was this idea revealed to us? So far as I know, this is just
a property of verbs of quality that we have deduced by their lack
of evidence and by the grammatical difficulties they would present
if allowed.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class="">This is probably not the case, but it could be. We
don’t know for sure, unless one of the canon masters can fill in
important missing examples.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Until we're told that <b>Hoch</b> acts like an adjectival verb,
it would be perfectly reasonable to use it as the noun it is, just
the way Okrand has done.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CFA0ACD6-EB64-4B3F-A9CE-6F46A3F870F8@mac.com">
<div class="">As a matter of personal style, depending on which
meaning you intended, I’d either use {Hoch chab tIn} [snip]<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This means <i>each big pie,</i> which is clearly not what he
wanted.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>