tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 22 15:09:30 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chuyDaH+mey (was Re: Problem Words)
: >Okrand never said that adding {-mey} to {chuyDaH} would refer to
: >"scattered all about". He said that adding {-mey} to {vIj} meant
: >"scattered all about".
:
: True, but that doesn't address my suggestion. I never said anything
: to contradict Okrand; I just proposed that adding a plural suffix where
: we don't expect it might not always do the same thing as in other cases
: where an unexpected {-mey} implies the "scattered" idea.
:
: > He didn't mention adding {-mey} to
: >{chuyDaH} AT ALL. So far as the rules go for plurals, there is
: >NEVER a time when you add a plural suffix to {chuyDaH}. It is
: >already plural. It doesn't get MORE plural as you add more of
: >them. It just stays grammatically singular, with a plural
: >meaning.
:
: You're right, of course. TKD says so at the bottom of page 23:
: "Finally, some nouns in Klingon are inherently or always plural in
: meaning, and therefore never take plural suffixes." However, TKD
: also says other things that are contradicted by examples. I am
: willing to consider a repluralized {chuyDaHmey}, mostly because of
: the syllable {DaH} in it, which we have seen translated in isolation
: to mean "bank" or "array". If a {chuyDaH} is something like the
: "thruster cluster" installed on contemporary spacecraft, then it's
: perfectly reasonable to consider plural clusters.
Interestingly, Okrand used redundant plural suffixes fairly liberally
following
numbers on the BoP poster - but not here:
Hong boq chuyDaH: loS
Impulse Fusion Thrusters - 4
muDDaq 'eDSeHcha lulaQlu'bogh: jav
Atmosperic Take-Off/Landing Thrusters - 6
By my reading: yes, you can obviously have more than one {chuyDaH} - "set of
(main?) thrusters" if you like - on a ship, but nevertheless the word NEVER
takes a plural suffix. You can tell Okrand did consider their inherent
plurality because of the {lu-} prefix on {laQ}, but still rejected {-mey}.
So:
loS chuyDaH jav 'eDSeHcha je ghaj bI'rel tlharghDuj'e'.
The B'rel class scout has four sets of main thrusters and six sets
of take-off/landing thrusters.
: I point you back at my musings on {chuyDaH} and {-mey} to show you that
: my point was that it *didn't* have to carry the scattered idea one might
: expect from the other rules about an unexpected {-mey}.
:
: -- ghunchu'wI'
I couldn't find any example of an inherently plural noun with a plural suffix
in my notes. But just to add fuel to the fire, here is Okrand speaking on the
opposite case: pluralizing the singular noun {mang} when there is a totally
different plural noun {negh}...
"The word {mang} is used when the warrior under discussion is described in
terms of his membership in a fighting unit (for example, as a crew member
on an
attack cruiser). Perhaps for this reason it is sometimes translated 'soldier'.
The usual plural form of {mang} is a different word altogether: {negh}
('warriors, soldiers'). The word {mangpu'} is seldom used used, but it is not
ungrammatical. It carries with it the notion that there are individuals (more
than one {mang}) making up the group; {negh} focuses on the group as a unit. A
similar word, {QaS}, normally translated 'troops', is used in almost the same
way as {negh}, but it excludes officers. All of the {negh} together make up
something called a {mangghom}." (KGT p.49f)
E.g.:
lojmIt HurDaq qatlh negh tu'lu'?
Why are there soldiers outside your door?
Why is there a detachment of soldiers outside your door?
lojmIt HurDaq cha' mang(pu') tu'lu'... qatlh?
There are two soldiers (troopers) outside your door... Why?
_________________________________________________________________________
Voragh "Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons lis est." Horace (Ars Poetica)