tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 07 17:34:53 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Using {'op}

>Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 12:40:25 -0600
>From: Steven Boozer <>
>AFAIK Okrand hasn't commented on whether there's a difference between {'op
>chab} and {'op chabmey}.  Does the former mean "some of the pie" (i.e. a
>piece), while the latter is "some of the pies" (i.e. 3 pies out of a batch of
>10)?  Or do they both mean "some of the pies", with the plural suffix
>optional?  (Note that you can also say {chab(mey) puS} "several pies, a few
>pies, a handful of pies".  To confuse matters, Okrand has used {puS} both with
>and without a plural suffix.)  

Don't forget that the business about {Hoch tlhIngan} vs. {Hoch tlhInganpu'}
is the *exception*, not the rule.  In general, we know that Klingon does
NOT draw a distinction between between nouns marked with the plural suffix
and unmarked plurals (aside from a few known areas).  So it is NOT
confusing that he has used {puS} with and without plural-marked nouns: it
is perfectly reasonable and normal.  It would have been unusual if he'd
said that it mattered!

Also, it looks like you're reading something into the marking-distinction
of {Hoch} that wasn't there.  {Hoch tlhIngan} does NOT mean "all of the
Klingon" (all of him as opposed to part of him)--that would be {tlhIngan
naQ}.  {Hoch tlhIngan} means "every Klingon", i.e. all Klingons, but each
considered individually, while {Hoch tlhInganpu'} means "all Klingons"
collectively.  The difference is very small and subtle, more a difference
of emphasis than any real semantic distinction (in most sentences anyway.
Ask a Lojbanist [including me] someday about masses).  So there's no reason
to suspect {'op SuvwI'} would mean "a piece of a warrior"; that would
analogous to {Hoch SuvwI'} as "the whole warrior", which we know is not
the case.


Back to archive top level