tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 04 14:46:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: proper use of meQ - burn
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: proper use of meQ - burn
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 17:49:08 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja'pu' HetaQ:
> > vaj [Paramount] DISuvmeH matay' chaq 'e' vIpIH'a'
>
> ja' SuStel:
> >Since "Paramount" is a singular noun, you need {wI-}, not {DI-}.
>
> Some consider corporations to be plural. Which is appropriate:
> "Paramount Pictures presents..." or "Paramount Pictures present..."?
> The answer is not definitive; global usage differs.
In TKD, Okrand explicitly states that inherantly plural nouns
are to be treated grammatically as singular. I don't have mine
with me just now, but I do remember this.
> >I'm not sure exactly why you've used both {chaq} and {-'a'}. Either ask a
> >question or suggest something. Don't suggest a question!
>
> nuqjatlh? This looks good to me. Did you misread {chaq} as {chup}?
I tend to agree that it sounds a bit strange. It sounds...
polite. "Wittering, vague and ..."
> >> qeylIS mupwI' luqaDvIpjaj jaghmaj jay'
> >
> >The only question now is exactly who is the enemy you refer to. If it's
> >"Paramount," then {jaghmaj} is fine. Paramount is an organization, a thing.
> >If the subject is "they," which it must be since you've used the prefix
> >{lu-},
> >then you must say {jaghma'}. They can speak, after all.
No. The individuals among them can speak, but the group cannot
speak. We've been through this. {qorDu'wIj} is the proper term,
not {qorDu'wI'}. A family does not speak. People in a family
speak.
> Again, maybe an organization is plural. I don't have any problem thinking
> of it that way, though I probably would consider it singular.
Grammatically, it is singular.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'