tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 11 12:55:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: We are klingons
According to William Cody:
>
> At first glance, I assumed it was <tlhIngan maH> But that would be <we are
> Klingon>, saying you, together, are the race of thlingan. But <thlnganpu'
> maH> would be <we are Klingons>, saying that the each of the group are
> Klingon. Very little difference, but I think <thlInganpu' maH> would be
> more acceptable. Opinions?
Remember that in Klingon, the plural suffix is optional,
especially when the grammar indicates plurality without it.
{tlhIngan maH} does not mean "We are Klingon." It means, "We
are Klingons." It ONLY means "We are Klingons." Because {maH}
is plural, we know that {tlhIngan} must be plural as well, and
putting {-pu'} on it is redundant. It is not incorrect, but it
has a formal flavor which will curl lips in some company.
As another example, if I say, {HIq DIneH!} to a bartender, he'd
better bring more than one beer. The {DI-} informs him that the
object is plural, even though there is no plural suffix on the
noun. See?
charghwI'