tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 07 22:12:24 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: chuyDaH+mey (was Re: Problem Words)

ja' charghwI':
>Meanwhile, I see an important difference between {chuyDaH} and
>{'eDSeHcha}. {chuyDaH} has a companion noun {vIj}.

I will note that the final syllable of {'eDSeHcha} is {cha}, which
as a standalone word is inherently plural and which *does* have a
companion singular {peng}.  It's just an observation; I don't intend
to use it as part of an argument.

>...Until I get a little more evidence to the
>contrary, I'm not seeing {'eDSeHcha} as being grammatically
>similar to {chuyDaH}.

How little do you want?  My observation about {cha} is small indeed. :)

>Wow. Minor revellation.
>If {chuyDaH} really refers to the cluster, and {vIj} really
>refers to the individual thruster, then it would indeed be
>natural for the plural of {vIj} to imply unclustered thrusters,
>since the cluster has another name for it.

Although logical argument from reasonable assumptions is useful, it has
two flaws when applied to language.  1) Language is not always logical,
and 2) Reasonable assumptions are not necessarily correct assumptions.
But it's all we have sometimes.

>But then again, what if a cluster was composed of three
>thrusters and you wanted to say that two of them were misfiring.
>They are not scattered, but they are not a whole cluster...

In that case, I'd leave off the plural suffix because that definitely
*does* imply scatteredness.  I'd probably try to say something about
{Qapchu'be'taH chuyDaH cha' vIj}.

>This is a lot more complex than it initially appears.

I see it as only a *little* complicated.

Back to archive top level