[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' vaghmaH vagh: <taS SuQ>‏

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

It's really easy to get an emotional attachment to a specific, if unjustified interpretation of the meaning of a word. I really don't much reason to make any more assumptions about how many {'op} is than I would about specifically identifying the subject of {leghlu'}. The whole point of {-lu'} is to NOT specify the subject, and the whole point of {'op} is to not specify the number.

It does suggest greater than zero, and I believe less than all, since I honestly read it as "an unspecified portion", and zero is not a portion and all is not a portion. Think of it as one half, with a margin of error of 0.4999999999999999...

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
lojmIttI7wI7nuv at gmail.com



On Oct 17, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:

> I still see it as part of a simple progression:
> 
> none - some - half -  most   - all
> pagh - 'op  - bID  - HochHom - Hoch
> 
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ghunchu'wI' 'utlh [mailto:qunchuy at alcaco.net]
>> 
>> ja' Voragh:
>>> It might just be my dialect, but {'op} "some" implies "few" or
>>> at least "not many"... I think of {'op} as being the opposite
>>> of {HochHom} "most, greater part",...
>> 
>> I too disagree with that understanding. I think {'op} just means an
>> unspecified number. It implies a number greater than zero, and I
>> wouldn't use it when the number is likely to be all of the population
>> being considered, but I don't know that doing so would be wrong.
>> 
>> -- ghunchu'wI'
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol