tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 18 20:55:02 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch, HochHom, bID, 'op
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 23:56:25 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 01:13:19 -0700 (PDT) [email protected] wrote:
> I've heard somewhere
> {cha yIghuS}
This is one of the original lines from the first Star Trek
movie. The actor who plays Scotty (I can't spell James Dohan)
actually made up the sounds for the actor who played the unnamed
Klingon captain (Mark Leanard). Okrand came along later and
turned this into words in TKD. Note that the word is {cha}, not
{cha'}.
> "be ready to fire IT torpedoes" although {cha} is torpedoeSS
>
> Is that the same case as
>
> > Which is correct?
> > cha' wISop
> > cha' DISop
We are not sure. Most likely, these are not the same. {cha} is
inherantly plural, sort of like the word "rain" or "grass" is
for English. Rain is falling (not rain are falling) and grass is
green (not grass are green). Meanwhile, if we use numbers as
nouns, we say, "Two are coming down the road." We don't say,
"Two is coming down the road."
It is not necessarily true that Klingon will follow these
examples, since English is inconsistent. Sheep are grazing. It
is not the case that sheep is grazing. Cattle are restless, not
cattle is restless.
Anyway, Okrand simply did not tell us or give us any useful
examples yet to prove that numbers used as nouns are treated one
way or the other. We just don't know for sure. Until we find
out, I will continue to grammatically treat numbers as plural
instead of singular. It just makes sense to me. If Okrand
declares otherwise, I'll change with no complaint.
> ______________
> muHwI'
> Stardate 97625.1
charghwI'