tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 23 01:18:23 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
paSlogh (was Re: yopwaH)
- From: Philip Newton <[email protected]>
- Subject: paSlogh (was Re: yopwaH)
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:11:12 +0100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=lQpZ8vsRNCXcnSpWfztFxOhNUcdO6uMwwgmikSS5CUJE1vvLnsoUYaLR531y7WOorcwaK7qm4+q8wSPuQlFa9rt8Y0Hua7rFdAofd0pClNMjLx+GMRs3Suf34HSOie4avqarShxyhH5dO0UVQKod7RMfu+Iph8oPE5pod/VLTRM=
On 1/23/06, QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:
> In Klingon, there's not one attested instance of a noun that is
> treated as grammatically plural although it's semantically singular. In
> fact, the opposite situation is the one we find: semantically plural nouns
> such as {ngop} "plates" are treated as grammatically singular, not plural.
> For this reason, I still think that {yopwaH} is not a grammatically (or
> semantically) plural noun, and that {yopwaHDaj 'oH yopwaHvam'e'} "these
> pants are his pants" is the correct form, not *{yopwaHDaj bIH yopwaHvam'e'}.
Hmm... what's the situation with {paSlogh}, then, I wonder?
Would it be correct to view it as an inherently plural noun which
takes singular concord (like {ngop})? For example, {paSloghwIj lunej;
nuqDaq 'oH?} "They are looking for my socks; where are they?" rather
than {paSloghwIj nej; nuqDaq bIH?}?
I suppose that would make sock/socks another pair of nouns with a
suppletive plural form -- a pair of which we happen not to know the
singular form.
Is that about right, based on what we know?
--
Philip Newton <[email protected]>
HovpoH 5206.91
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol ghojwI']](/pics/level2_big.png "[Hol ghojwI']"){kind=small}