tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 02 18:42:44 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: qep'a' highlights


On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:32:42 -0700 "Mark E. Shoulson" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:26:38 -0700
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
... 
> >I've been noticing this trend to make what I'm currently interpreting as
> >an error ever since I noticed it in Hamlet. Inherantly plural nouns are
> >treated as grammatically singular. 3.3.2, page 24...

> >In other words, I'd say:
> 
> >Three guys see it.
> >lulegh wej nuv.
> >legh wej.
> >lulegh nuvpu'.
> >lulegh nuv.

~mark replies:

> Interesting.  Eerie.  Never considered that.  I think I disagree, though.
> And what's more, I think canon disagrees.
> 
> See TKD page 54 (section 5.2).  Okrand gives the example "wa' yIHoH" for
> "Kill one (of them)!" and says that the "wa'" is used for emphasis only,
> since the "yI-" prefix already indicates singular object.  This would not
> be so if "yI-" were also used with "wej" or "loS."  It would seem it should
> be "wej tIHoH" and thus "lulegh wej."

I think it is a stretch to say "canon disagrees". If you begin assuming 
that a number higher than one should be treated grammatically as plural, 
then you could read the canon which says {wa' yIHoH} deals with the 
singular, therefore {wej tIHoH} would be appropriate. Meanwhile, if you 
begin with the assumption that {wej yIHoH} would be appropriate, you 
could say that {tIHoH} and {wej nuv tIHoH} would be correct, while {wej 
yIHoH} would also be correct. 

This is because mentioning no noun would require the prefix to be 
plural. Using the number word to modify a noun which is not inherently 
plural would also require the plural prefix. But using the number alone 
as a noun might very well be interpreted as an inherently plural noun 
not requiring the plural prefix. See?

Members of a family ARE, but a family IS. In English, we'd say "Three 
ARE in the house," but we'd also say "Three IS the correct number." 
Three prisoners might be thought of in Klingon as "prisoners of the 
group of three", or "members of the group of three" such that, like the 
English word "family" if you remove the "members of", it becomes 
grammatically singular.

I'll gladly bend this opinion with a more direct canonical example or 
even a hint in a conversation with Okrand. It is not a strong opinion, 
but it is a point that I think would be most interesting and would 
actually fit quite well with the current rules we have for plurality in 
the language.

> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level