On 1/6/2020 1:26 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Jan 6, 2020, at 11:00 AM, SuStel<sustel@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