tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 03 20:40:04 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' highlights
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:50:05 -0700
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>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.
But the point is in Okrand's emphasis. He says that the "wa'" is for
emphasisonly, implying that the singularity of the object is already
implied by the yI- prefix. If "?wej yIHoH" were correct, he wouldn't be
able to say that the "wa'" is not required to indicate that the object is
singular.
Hrm, I think I see what you're trying to say, but it still seems
far-fetched. If that's what Okrand is trying to say, he's sure finding the
most obscure way to go about it. You're trying to tell me that if I have
exactly the same situation, the verb needs to change depending on whether
or not I choose to elide the object? (argh, that's also true with Hoch,
isn't it?) I'm not convinced. From what it looks like to me, the
implication is that the yI- suffices because wa' is singular, while wej
isn't.
I think you're stretching the usage of numbers some. This is pretty
plainly a grey area; I can see where you're getting your basis from... I
just don't agree with it. You're considering numbers-as-nouns to be, well,
nouns, and as nouns with a plural meaning they must be grammatically
singular. I don't think they do that. Numbers aren't nouns, they're
chuvmey. They do their own thing (so even if you disagree with the next
thing I say, it still doesn't mean they have to do just what nouns do). To
me, bare numbers are more like elliptical expressions for "one of them"
"three of them," etc. They're still functioning as numbers, just the noun
they were modifying is implied, dropped out, and they are all that's left
of the noun-phrase. So they're NOT true nouns, but still numbers, and as
such still plural.
>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.
These are not all the same argument. Family is/members are is a collection
vs. its members. The "wej" in "wej tIHoH" are not, so far as I can tell,
implied to be grouped together or viewed as a cohesive whole. It's not
like you're saying "kill the trio"; THAT would be a collective, like a
family. It's "Kill three (of them)." They're not collected, they're just
as much "three" as "wej nuvpu' tIHoH." Neither one talks about the members
any more or less particularly than the whole.
"Three are in the house" vs. "three is the correct number" is a use/mention
problem; it's more sophistry. In the first sentence, "three" is being
*used* to mean three of something. In the second, "three" is being
mentioned, not used for its meaning. It's almost like it has scare quotes
around it (just because I can say "'I' is the first-person pronoun in
English" doesn't mean "I" construes with "is"). This argument doesn't
really enter into this.
>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.
Aha... this might be fun. Might be dangerous when Okrand finds out about
this. See, I think I'm right (a tautology if ever there was one). I'll
even go so far as to say that I think Okrand would agree with me. HOWEVER,
I wouldn't put it past him to change his mind when he hears your argument,
not because he likes what you're arguing (he might, but even if he
doesn't), but because it would be really weird and make Klingon act even
odder than it already does. And in that case, I don't think I'd mind
much. :) (not like I'd have a choice.)
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMiz6DMppGeTJXWZ9AQFz+gMAhiq38dkWOEVoW5qcajtDm0zbOwVtGI+V
2CRYl7rzYdXLDsGMwv7EwRekVUrASBPIUBKQPw43Uoj32rSbPFPs9Eo1RjKKpxlY
wXEjMoc+p8KReVhhx+yaFBXiXZrJEUE5
=mfrG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----