tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 08 14:36:46 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: choyaj'a'?



charghwI' on tlhIH and 'ar:

>     I thought of that and decided that it is probably not a good idea. This
>is one of those picky little rules you have to remember from the grammar. The
>last thing under "Questions", TKD 6.4 says of {'ar} "...it can never follow a
>noun with a plural suffix." This presses one toward applying it to singular
>nouns in general.

I don't think so; I think you are over-reaching.  It says explicitly
plural suffixes.

...

>     That follows the rule. Now if it really is okay to use {tlhIH} with
>{'ar} because, though it is plural, it has no plural suffix, then you are
>right. I am willing to accept that possibility. What do the grammarians
>think?

That's my take.  It doesn't say no plural, it says no plural suffix.
An interesting question we might ask at the same time is:  can you
use 'ar with an inately plural noun?  That is, can you say:  cha 'ar
or does it have to be peng 'ar?  I see no reason cha 'ar is
syntactically wrong (though it may not be the choice,
stylistically-- we don't know).

>     Hmm. Thinking about it more, I see that we again suffer from Okrand's
>vagueness. He did not say that the verbal prefix could not tell us that the
>noun was plural even if it were without the plural suffix. His only examples
>use third person subjects, whose number cannot be distinguished from the
>verbal prefix. I think I still favor just using singular nouns with {'ar}. I
>think it makes sense as a thing that is simply stylistic to the language.
>Again, I am open to other opinions.

Actually, I think this is one case were he was extremely clear.  He
said you can't use a plural suffix on a noun with 'ar.  That's
pretty clear.  That's all he said.  That's all that applies.

In particular, be careful not to fall into the age-old trap:  When
we follow the explicit rule and eschew a plural suffix on an 'ar
noun, *that does not mean the noun is singular*.  Again, lack of an
explicit plural suffix does not mean a noun is necessarily singular.
It therefore does not necessarily follow *at all* that things with
'ar are considered singular in any way shape or form.  An alternate
explanation might be that, in fact, they are very strongly
considered *plural* in nature, so much so that one never uses the
plural suffix because it would be so hugely *redundant*.

So, in short, I think we trod on shakey ground if we try to read
more into it than what he said.

            --Krankor



Back to archive top level