tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 12 13:46:06 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chuyDaH+mey (was Re: Problem Words)
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:21:43 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
It's a good thing, since I usually note a difference between a
torpedo and a thruster. Though, I guess if you want to get off
the ground REALLY FAST, one could be used for the other...
> >...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. :)
machchu'.
> >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.
qar. I probably was placing about as much weight on this
observation as you were with {cha}.
> >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}.
Again, this implies that {chuyDaH} refers to a cluster of
thrusters, as opposed to what Okrand likely was referring to,
which is a simpler plural noun, so that this winds up being
redundant or possibly even worse:
Thrusters #2's thruster is not working perfectly.
Two of the thrusters' thrusters are not working perfectly.
> >This is a lot more complex than it initially appears.
>
> I see it as only a *little* complicated.
It's just so uncertain.
charghwI' 'utlh