tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 27 18:50:33 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chuyDaH+mey (was Re: Problem Words)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: chuyDaH+mey (was Re: Problem Words)
- Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:49:13 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:23:30 -0800 (PST) Steven Boozer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> : >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.
True, but that doesn't address my suggestion. I never said
anything to contradict Okrand; I just pointed out that under no
circumstances has Okrand ever suggested that an inherantly
plural noun could take a plural suffix at all. He addresses how
the singular form of an inherantly plural noun can take the
plural suffix in order to add the meaning of "scattered all
about", but he never suggests that the inherantly plural form
can ever take a plural suffix. He didn't describe any conditions
where it could and he has never provided any canon example of it
being used that way. Until he does, it seems a little premature
to suggest what the meaning would be if he were to do so.
> : > 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.
You quoted him literally saying, "and therefore never take
plural suffixes." You can't produce any examples of him using
the plural suffix on a word like that and then you conclude,
"...then it's perfectly reasonable to consider plural clusters."
I simply disagree. It could go either way, but until something
new is presented, I'm heavily against using plural suffixes on
these words, especially since Okrand didn't even do this on this
poster. It was a great opportunity for him if he were to want to
do so. He apparently didn't.
> 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}.
Yes. I completely agree.
> 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.
The interesting confusion Okrand then leaves us with is that
since these words are supposed to be treated grammatically
singular, what happens when we put a number in front of them? Do
we still treat is grammatically singular? Is the plural suffix
the only thing we don't do to consider it plural? It is a bit
messy yet.
> : 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?
The real mess we can't resolve yet is how to deal with multiple
clusters in terms of grammatically singular treatment of
inherantly plural nouns with numbers in front of them. How would
you answer:
chuyDaH 'ar lughaj cha' tlharghDuj?
When you give your answer, does the verb have {lu-} or not?
There is no way to answer this question yet. Whatever answer we
give is an assumption without merit. Okrand is the only one who
can either say, "They are always treated grammatically singular
EXCEPT FOR THE CASE WHEN..." or "Nouns with numbers in front of
them are always treated grammatically as plural EXCEPT FOR THE
CASE WHEN..." These two rules basically collide in this example
and we have no guidelines on which rule wins in this case.
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Voragh "Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons lis est." Horace (Ars Poetica)
charghwI' 'utlh