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

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:21:43 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson 
<aranders@netusa1.net> 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