tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 29 22:36:01 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 311


ghItlh ghunch'wI'

>"council" IS NOT A VERB.
     Yes!  I got carried away with a previous note and didn't check my facts.

>>   If the council is composed of beings capable of speech wouldn't that
>mandate -wI'?

>Not necessarily.  When a group of people form a committee, I grant that
>the committee can "speak."  But arguments can be made either way regarding
>some groups; a crowd, for instance, or a boarding party.  I think that in
>this particular case, a council as a whole can be considered to speak.
     That's in line with an American attitude toward groups.  Americans say
"CBS is going to present..."  The British will say "The BBC are going to
present..." regarding the group more as a collection of individuals however
cooperative they may be.
     Actually, the instruction in KLD 3.3.4. addresses, in terms of the
possessed, only the singular noun;  although when it gets to -vam and
-vetlh, plural nouns ARE addressed.  Have we then no authority for applying
-wI' and company to plural nouns?  Let alone groups?  Hmm, of course rIp IS
a singular noun.  {{;-)
     If we assume the rule applies to plural nouns, though not mentioned in
KLD, can we not with justice assume that the rule applies to groups of
speaking beings?   Especially to a powerful council which might remember
long a fancied slight in the use of regular suffixes?  To put it another
way, the instruction seems to have more to do with the ability to speak
than any manner of grouping, plural noun, collective noun.  Are there any
dicta to the contrary from MO?

>As long as you're at it, you shouldn't forget the one that DOES work.
>           my counselor =  qeSwI'wI'
       tev Dange'chu'


     Qapla'

     qeSmIv HarghwI'

Back to archive top level