Skip to content

Email Discussion Group

Re: to' nech, 029: {'ay' tu'lu''a'? joj tIqel.}

tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 13 10:31:04 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: to' nech, 029: {'ay' tu'lu''a'? joj tIqel.}

At 14:58 2002-04-12 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
>From: "Steven Boozer" 
> > >K: 'ay' tu'lu''a'?  joj tIqel.
> > >Gloss: Are there sections?  Consider the interstices.
> > >Eno/Schmidt: Are there sections? Consider transitions
> >
> > I've noticed you like to omit optional plural suffixes.  I do too, when
> > it's obvious from context (i.e. numbers or verb prefixes).

BTW, Voragh is quite right:  I think that /always/ marking plurality is 
just a daffy hangover from English.  Relying on verb prefixes is much more, 
say, Navajo.

>The other time it's good to omit plural suffixes is when it doesn't really
>matter whether the noun is singular or plural.

Very true.
And sometimes marking can even avoid a misparse.  Consider to'nech Dup 031: 
{latlhpu' Qaghmey tI'angQo'!}  (That Dup hasn't been vetted yet, as I've 
just posted it, but anyhow.)

If that were:
   latlhpu' Qagh tI'angQo'!
It would, I think, still be a valid expression of the same thing, namely 

So the "mey" on Qaghmey not only signals "this is plural", but also "this 
is a noun!".

Sean M. Burke

Back to archive top level

This page was last modified on February 13, 2015 and is managed by:

The Klingon Language Institute is a nonprofit corporation and exists to facilitate the scholarly exploration of the Klingon language and culture. Klingon, Star Trek, and all related marks are Copyrights and Trademarks of Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved. Klingon Language Institute Authorized User.