tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 22 15:26:09 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yopwaH
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yopwaH
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:25:55 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
>You'll have to ask okrand, considering we call it a pair of pants for a
>reson.
I'd be interested to know what that reason is, and why, if at all, any
argument about the English word's plurality should apply to Klingon too. Is
it that we put two legs into it? If that's the case, then why is "bra"
singular? Applying English logic (which is an oxymoron anyway) to Klingon is
an exercise in ethnocentrism and in making a mess. Even more so, when one
considers that some of the largest communities of Klingon speakers are found
in Germany and Sweden; should we impose our English (il-)logic on their
Klingon too?
No, I would say that in Klingon, {yopwaH} is in all likelihood singular.
jangpu' lay'SIv, ja':
>I've never, in 50 years, heard anyone talk about one of the two leggings of
>a pair of trousers as a 'pant'.
Nor have I (although I've only got 22 years under my belt). That being said,
some department store catalogues in Australia have begun to refer to single
pairs of pants and shorts as "pant" and "short" - which probably has to do
with removing ambiguity over plurality, but nevertheless grates on me
something horrible every time I see it.
Savan,
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Make your dream car a reality
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcarpoint%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=12345&_r=emailtagline&_m=EXT