tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 21 10:29:22 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' highlights
>Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:26:38 -0700
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>..
>> vIHev ngeHlu'DI', 'ej lutlha'bogh Hoch vIHevpu'. nom lunungbogh wej
>> (ghap loS) vIje' je. Hoch vIlaDta' - 'ach bIH vIqawchu'be' je. :)
>I've been noticing this trend to make what I'm currently interpreting as
>an error ever since I noticed it in Hamlet. Inherantly plural nouns are
>treated as grammatically singular. 3.3.2, page 24. Here, I'd consider
>{Hoch} to be an inherantly plural noun, and since {wej} is being used as a
>noun instead of as chuvmey, I'd similarly consider IT to be inherantly
>plural as well, and so I'd eliminate the {lu-} prefixes for the verbs
>which use these two nouns as subjects above.
>In other words, I'd say:
>Three guys see it.
>lulegh wej nuv.
>legh wej.
>lulegh nuvpu'.
>lulegh nuv.
>The first example is the least controversial. I assume we all agree that
>this is correct.
>The second example probably is controversial, but given the description in
>TKD on page 24, I'd like someone to explain to me why it is incorrect.
Interesting. Eerie. Never considered that. I think I disagree, though.
And what's more, I think canon disagrees.
See TKD page 54 (section 5.2). Okrand gives the example "wa' yIHoH" for
"Kill one (of them)!" and says that the "wa'" is used for emphasis only,
since the "yI-" prefix already indicates singular object. This would not
be so if "yI-" were also used with "wej" or "loS." It would seem it should
be "wej tIHoH" and thus "lulegh wej."
>The third example is also not controversial.
>The fourth example should also be correct because you never NEED to
>express the plural suffix, ESPECIALLY if there is another grammatical sign
>that the noun is plural. In this case {lu-} should be enough, and only an
>English speaker accustomed to lots of redundancy would insist on the
>plural suffix (though its presence is certainly not to be shunned, since
>more people will more immediately understand you).
I agree. This example is not controversial to me.
~mark