Hi, I had forwarded your questions on {ngIq}, and here is Okrand's answer. Basically, your assumptions were right, but it's good to have this clarified. ---- For the archive: this is printed in qepHom 2017, page 24. ---- {ngIq} can indeed carry the "one after the other" or "one by one" meaning. So {ngIq mIch wIHotlh] could mean "we scan each individual sector one after the other" or "we scan the sectors one by one." {Hoch} does not have this sequential meaning. {Hoch mIch wIHotlh} is simply "we scan each sector". {Hoch} focuses on things as members of a group; {ngIq} focuses on the individual things. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. Both {Hoch} and {ngIq} could be translated with "each"; {Hoch}, but not {ngIq}, could be translated with "every." {ngIq} could also be translated as "single" or "individual" but the implication is that there are or could be other similar things as well (even if they don't matter for what is currently being talked about). For example, in paq'batlh, the phrase {ngIq tonSaw'}is translated "one single move." The implication is that whatever is going on here could have been or might have been accomplished with several moves (presumably sequentially), but one was enough. Saying {wa' tonSaw'} would not get across the idea that more than one move was possible but was not needed and did not occur. Sometimes {ngIq} and {Hoch} are interchangeable. For example, a sentence in Monopoly is {ngIq gholvo' wa'maH QaS yItlhap} "Collect 10 forces from every player." Chances are, you'll take the forces from each opponent one at a time, one after the other (so {ngIq} is used appropriately here), but collecting the forces sequentially is not important as far as the game goes (so {Hoch} would have been fine as well). {ngIq X} is considered inherently plural (like {cha} and some other words) since it refers to more than one X (if there were only one X, you'd simply say X or wa' X.) As such, it is grammatically singular, so {wIHotlh} in your sentence is correct; {DIHotlh} is wrong. (The description of {ngIq} in boQwI' is pretty good.) ---- This tidbit from #qepHom2017 will be added to the page "Message from Maltz" on qepHom.de later: https://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz.html -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/qepHom2017
On 20 November 2017 at 12:10, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi,
I had forwarded your questions on {ngIq}, and here is Okrand's answer. Basically, your assumptions were right, but it's good to have this clarified. ---- ...
(The description of {ngIq} in boQwI' is pretty good.)
Well, this is awkward. I want to edit this entry to include the new information, but if I do, then it won't be the text that Marc Okrand referred to any more. For posterity, here is what it currently says: "This noun indicates that a single thing is being considered apart from others, or that a sequence of identical things is considered one after another. Like {Hoch} and {'op}, it precedes what it modifies." (The printed qepHom booklet actually includes a screenshot of this text next to Okrand's reference to it, so it's preserved there as well.) -- De'vID
Well, consider it a self-fulfilling prophecy: If Marc Okrand has specified something, then it's bound to end up on boQwI'. If boQwI' cites Marc Okrand, then boQwI' is accurate. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 11:11 To: tlhIngan-Hol Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] ngIq clarified On 20 November 2017 at 12:10, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de<mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote: Hi, I had forwarded your questions on {ngIq}, and here is Okrand's answer. Basically, your assumptions were right, but it's good to have this clarified. ---- ... (The description of {ngIq} in boQwI' is pretty good.) Well, this is awkward. I want to edit this entry to include the new information, but if I do, then it won't be the text that Marc Okrand referred to any more. For posterity, here is what it currently says: "This noun indicates that a single thing is being considered apart from others, or that a sequence of identical things is considered one after another. Like {Hoch} and {'op}, it precedes what it modifies." (The printed qepHom booklet actually includes a screenshot of this text next to Okrand's reference to it, so it's preserved there as well.) -- De'vID
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:11 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, this is awkward. I want to edit this entry to include the new information, but if I do, then it won't be the text that Marc Okrand referred to any more.
For posterity, here is what it currently says: "This noun indicates that a single thing is being considered apart from others, or that a sequence of identical things is considered one after another. Like {Hoch} and {'op}, it precedes what it modifies."
(The printed qepHom booklet actually includes a screenshot of this text next to Okrand's reference to it, so it's preserved there as well.)
Maybe you can include the original text of the entry in the optional note section where puns and the like go, along with a mention that Okrand thought that text was pretty good. Also, it's good to have this clarified, even though it turned out pretty much like we thought. Thanks again, Lieven and MO and Maltz!
participants (4)
-
De'vID -
Felix Malmenbeck -
Lieven -
nIqolay Q