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