tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 22 12:39:50 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "to be" and plurals
DloraH:
> > What if the captain orders you to fire three torpedoes?
> > [wej cha] or if we shouldn't put numbers on inherently plurals, [wej peng]?
Quvar:
>Maybe this is just my personal feeling, but I think it should be {wej cha}
>"three torpedoes", since {cha} is the plural form of {peng}, right?
Interesting discussion. Here are a couple of quotations from KGT on the
use of inherently plural nouns that may help (although I couldn't find
anything on how they are used with numbers):
Another grammatical feature of Klingon about which children frequently
become confused
involves nouns that are inherently plural, such as {cha} (torpedoes) and
{ngop} (plates
[for eating]), as opposed to their singular counterparts {peng}
(torpedo) and {jengva'}
(plate). Instead of using the special plural forms, children tend forms
plurals of these
words by simply adding the plural suffix {-mey} to the singular forms
({pengmey},
{jengva'mey}), as would be done with most other nouns (except for those
referring to
body parts or to beings capable of language, for which {-Du'} and
{-pu'}, respectively,
would be used), such as {yuQmey} (planets). Adults also add {-mey} to
these nouns, but
they do so to indicate that the items are scattered about ({jengva'mey},
"plates
scattered all over the place"). For children who say {jengva'mey}, it
apparently means
simply "plates"; that is, it is nothing more than the plural form of
{jengva'}. Children
seem to be aware of the existence of the inherently plural forms,
however, for they use
them as well, though usually with the suffix {-mey} superfluously
appended: {chamey}
("torpedoeses"), {ngopmey} ("plateses"). (KGT, 33)
By the same token, {cha' DoSmey DIqIp} ("We hit two targets") or the shorter
{DoSmey DIqIp} ("We hit targets") normally means "We disagree." [....]
In using
an idiom, one must repeat it exactly; paraphrases will be interpreted
literally, not in the idiomatic sense. Thus, in the last example above,
the word
for "targets" must be {DoSmey} ({DoS}, "target," plus {-mey}, "plural"),
never
{ray'}, an inherently plural noun meaning "targets." The phrase {ray'
wIqIp} means
only "We hit targets"; it would never be interpreted as having anything
to do with
agreeing or not agreeing. (Inherently plural nouns like {ray'} are
grammatically
singular, so the verb form is {wIqIp}--literally, "we hit it"--rather
than {DIqIp},
"We hit them".) Incidentally, the word {DoSmey} brings with it
connotations of
"scattered all about," so {DoSmey DIqIp} really means something like "We hit
scattered targets," an image that fits the idiomatic meaning of "We
disagree"
quite well. (KGT, 106)
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, 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. (KGT, 49f)
So, using a plural suffix on the singular noun is grammatical, though not
common (at least among adults). It seems to focus on separate, individual
items rather than the collective. This probably means that {wej peng(mey)}
is grammatical, meaning "three (separate) torpedoes". I can imagine the
following exchange:
HoD, jagh tengchaH wIQaw'meH yapbe' chamaj!
Captain, we don't have enough torpedoes to destroy the enemy station!
Qu'vatlh! peng 'ar wIHutlh?
&%#$! How many torpedoes do we need ("lack")?
wej (peng), qaH.
Three (torpedoes), sir.
SuStel:
> >>The oddity here is that, grammatically, /no'/ "ancestors" is singular, but
> >>its meaning is plural. So do we follow the meaning or the grammar?
> >>
> >>Given the "officers" idea above, I would tend toward:
> >>
> >> yaSpu' chaH no'chaj'e'
> >> "His ancestors were officers"
Quvar:
>Sounds correct. But it seems to violate the rule.
>But {yaSpu' ghaH} seems to be wrong too: "HE are plural??"
>{yaS ghaH no''e'} looks better, but it's still weird with this inherently
>plural
>thing. I prefer this:
>
> {yaSpu' chaH qempa'Daj'e'}
> "His ancestors are officers"
Inherently plural nouns are considered singular as far as how they fit
into the
overall grammatical structure. Thus, the singular pronoun {'oH} (it) is
used for
both {jengva'} (plate) and {ngop} (plates) in sentences such as {nuqDaq 'oH
jengva''e'?} ("Where is the plate?") and {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} ("Where
are the
plates?"). Children, however, tend to use the plural pronoun {bIH}
(they) with
{ngop} (as well as with {jengva'mey} and the redundantly suffixed
{ngopmey}):
{nuqDaq bIH ngop'e'?} ("Where are the plates?"). (KGT, 33-34)
{Hochlogh no' yIquvmoH} ("All times honor your ancestors"; {no'},
"ancestors";
{yIquvmoH}, "Honor them!" [actually, this is "Honor him/her!"; the
inherently plural
noun {no'}, "ancestors," takes a singular pronoun]); compare {reH no'
yIquvmoH}
("Always honor your ancestors"). (KGT, 178)
Since you *must* use a singular pronoun to refer to {no'}, it seems that
the correct version is actually:
yaS ghaH no'chaj'e'.
His ancestors were officers.
however odd it looks to us. Quvar's idea of dropping the optional {-pu'}
from {yaS} is good and makes it somewhat less jarring to the (Terran) eye.
--
Voragh "Damage control is easy. Reading Klingon
- that's
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons hard!" (Montgomery
Scott, STIV)