The word HochHom is well known' HochHom may mean:- - N:[most|greater_part]= - N:all NS1:diminutive i.e. "small all". Is there any chance for what seems to me to be a logical opposite to it?:- pagh'a' pagh'a' may mean:- - N:nothing NS1:augmentative - N:no_one= NS1:augmentative - I:0 VS9:interrogative - I:0 NS1:augmentative I was tempted to suggest it to ask Marc Okrand about using pagh'a' as "big nothing", i.e. "next to nothing", "very little", "not enough to be of use".

On 15 August 2017 at 10:53, Aurélie Demonchaux <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm wondering, wouldn't <pagh’a’> convey "absolutely nothing / absolute nothingness"?

That's how I would interpret it: the great void, absolute vacuum, etc. I would think that the "logical opposite" of, e.g., {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom} "most of the (Terran) 23rd century", would be something like {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej 'ay'Hom} "some small part of the 23rd century". On 15 August 2017 at 09:55, Anthony Appleyard <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:

The word HochHom is well known' [...] i.e. "small all".

Is there any chance for what seems to me to be a logical opposite to it?:-

pagh'a'

*{tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej pagh'a'} ???"absolutely none of the 23rd century"??? Doesn't work for me. -- De'vID

Probably not. The examples of adverbial {je} indicate that it's used when the verb is the same as a previous sentence but the subject or object is different. In your example the verb has changed. On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:07 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

maj.

Now, lets examine another example:

{Su'IH 'ej Suwoch je} You're beautiful and you're tall too You're beautiful and you're also tall

Is this considered a proper use of the adverbial {je} ?

qunnoq

On 14 Aug 2017 11:16 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I don't see why not. {vIHar je} on its own would mean either "I believe it (and others believe it too)" or "I believe it (and I believe other things too)." Your example fits the latter; you believe the duck is beautiful, and also, you believe that the cat is beautiful. An example of the former ("I and others believe it") would be {'IH vIghrolIj 'e' Har wo'rIv. 'IH vIghrolIj 'e' vIHar je.}

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:04 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

According to tkd, we can use the adverbial {je} in this way:

{qaleghpu' je} I saw you too

With the ambiguity of course being, "I and others saw you or I saw you and others".

All these are known, however I would like to ask if the following would be a correct use of {je} too:

{'IH Da'vI'lIj 'e' vIHar; 'IH vIghrolIj 'e' vIHar je} Your duck is beautiful, I believe it; your cat is beautiful, I believe it too.

qunnoq

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Skybox 2: {lI'qu' tlhIngan may' taj. not Hub'eghrupHa' lo'wI'. taj DopmeyDaq nargh cha' tajHom. ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je. De'vID: But this can be explained by interpreting {pe'laH je} as "they also (in addition to the main blade) cut", which does match the English translation of "another set of cutting edges". Very interesting comments. However, lets approach it from another angle. As I understand the adverbial use of {je}, as it is described in tkd, and as nIqolay Q explained, we need to have the same verb, repeated twice. However, in the skybox example, we have a {je} which follows the verb {pe'laH}, without having seen the verb {pe'} anywhere else in the preceding sentences. Even the knife, is being referred to as {may' taj}, and not {pe'meH taj}. Granted, since the subject is a "battle knife", and not a "cutting knife", one indeed expects to see {may' taj}. Regardless though, the fact remains, that we do not have a {pe'} in the preceeding sentences, not even in the form of a {-meH}ed noun. I understand the possibility, that since the entirety of this sentence concerns a knife, it would be possible for the {pe'laH je}, to actually mean "they also (in addition to the main blade) cut". But the important fact -according to my opinion-, is that regardless of the english translation, we have an adverbial {je} used not on a single verb which remains the same and is repeated twice, but on the second of two different verbs. So, the question now is: If we saw only the klingon sentence, of Skybox 2, without seeing the english translation, wouldn't it be sufficient evidence to allow us to use the {je}, not only in cases where the verb remains the same ? qunnoq

De'vID:

nuqjatlh? Where does it say the same verb has to be repeated twice?

Perhaps I made the wrong choice of words. I meant that according to tkd, the adverbial {je} comes after a verb and that's it. We have a single verb, which remains the same (regardless of how many times it has been repeated in a dialogue/passage), with the subject and/or object possibly changing. guy 1: qalegh guy 2: qalegh too (two guys having seen each other, or guy 2 saying to guy 1 that he saw him and someone else or others too). The question which led to this thread, was whether we could have a use of the adverbial {je}, in this way: {Su'IH. 'ej Suwoch je} You are beautiful. And you are also tall. This is what I meant by writting "two different verbs". qunnoq On 15 Aug 2017 5:33 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: On 15 August 2017 at 16:26, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

As I understand the adverbial use of {je}, as it is described in tkd, and as nIqolay Q explained, we need to have the same verb, repeated twice.

nuqjatlh? Where does it say the same verb has to be repeated twice? The example in TKD is {qaleghpu' je}. There's no repetition of {legh}. -- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 8/15/2017 10:32 AM, De'vID wrote:

On 15 August 2017 at 16:26, mayqel qunenoS<mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

As I understand the adverbial use of {je}, as it is described in tkd, and as nIqolay Q explained, we need to have the same verb, repeated twice. nuqjatlh? Where does it say the same verb has to be repeated twice?

The example in TKD is {qaleghpu' je}. There's no repetition of {legh}.

There is an implied repetition. You don't use *je* on a verb without context (which TKD mentions explicitly for once). Inherent in the idea of *je* is the notion that there is some other thing that was previously said to which the *je* is referring. *je* used with verbs REMAINS A NOUN CONJUNCTION. You are conjoining the nouns present in either the object positions of the verbs or the subject positions of the verbs./I AND others saw you/ or /I saw you AND others./ Let's suppose a full context like so: *latlh vIleghpu'; SoH qaleghpu' je */I saw others; I also saw you = I saw you and others/ This is equivalent to: *latlh SoH je Saleghpu' */I saw you and others/ The other interpretation of *qaleghpu' je* goes like this: *SoH nIleghpu' latlh; SoH qaleghpu' jIH je */others saw you; I saw you too = I and others saw you/ *SoH pIleghpu' latlh jIH je */I and others saw you/ So to reiterate: *je* is a NOUN CONJUNCTION being placed after a verb to conjoin one of the nouns of that verb with the equivalently positioned noun in another verb. Now, TKD doesn't explicitly say that the verbs have to be identical, but that's a pretty safe bet considering what it means. But then we get the SkyBox card with *ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.* What nouns are being conjoined here? None that I can see; the subject *tajHommey* seems to be carried over to the next verb: *pe'laH je */they //[the small blades] can also cut./ Here, *je* is functioning identically to the sentence conjunction *'ej:* *ghop luQan tajHommey 'ej pe'laH*/the small blades protect the hand and they can cut./ It is my opinion that this sentence is in error due to the casual way in which we English speakers toss around the word /also. /Okrand was thinking, *je* = /also,/ even though the /also/ he was thinking of was the *'ej* variety. Doubtless he could come up with some justification for this text, but so far he hasn't, and it appears to be a simple error. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name