tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 13 11:51:35 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ke'Plak
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Ke'Plak
- Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 14:42:52 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:16:39 -0700 (PDT) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 98-09-11 11:05:30 EDT, Voragh writes:
>
> << to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh tIlaj!
> Accept these stuffed tobbaj legs! PK >>
>
> Since this is from a canon source, it must be correct. However:
>
> lughoD indicates that to'baj 'uS is grammatically singular even if inherently
> plural. And, tIlaj indicates a plural object. Inconsistent!!!!
>
> peHruS
I'm not convinced this is such a big deal. While there certainly
are some food words that we are told are never used in the
singular or never used in the plural, this is never the case
with {'uS}. We can say {'uS} or {'uSDu'}. {to'baj 'uSDu';
to'baj 'uS} is no different.
All this means is that, as we already know from 3.3.2, page 21
of TKD, "Unlike English, however, the lack of a specific suffix
for plural does not always indicate that the noun is singular...
The plurality is indicated by a pronoun, whether a verb prefix
(see section 4.1) or a full word (section 5.1), or by context."
In this case, the legs are plural. Okrand didn't bother to put
the plural suffix on it because here we have TWO grammatical
clues that the legs are plural: {lughoDlu'bogh} and {tIlaj}.
He's not being inconsistent. He's following clearly stated rules
of the grammar.
charghwI'