tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 21 17:10:22 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: plurals (was Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day)



ja' Xardana:
>DaH chomISmoH.  Although {ngop}, as an example of an "inherent plural," does
>not use any "suffix" to indicate its plurality, I still think of it as a
>plural form.  This does not make them irregular, only a different category.

The ideas carried by {ngop} and other "inherently plural" nouns is
translated into English as a plural word.  However, they are treated in
Klingon as singular.  I'm now unsure whether such words actually carry a
"plural" connotation in Klingon at all.

>As to how to treat them grammatically, so far I have not seen a grammar
>highlight talking about them.  You are correct--from what I have been able to
>discern from TKD--that Klingon grammar treats them as singular when
>conjugating a verb.

{Duj} "instincts" seems to be an exception, according to TKW page 27.  It
can be treated as either singular or plural.

>While you say you have been really careful and deliberate, it seems to me
>that you are picking on the grammar highlights any chance you get.

I wouldn't jump on them if they weren't being presented as instructional
material, or if they weren't so excruciatingly close to correct while still
missing the mark so authoritatively.

>I would like to see people comment constructively on learning Klingon.

Please look at the "plurals" thread from the beginning.  I thought I *did*
provide constructive comments about how plural suffixes are used.  When
peHruS "replied" to my note, he neither supported his original statements
nor agreed that he was incorrect.  He instead brought in an additional
topic which had no bearing on his original statement and my comments,
following an uncomfortably familiar pattern that I've come to expect from
him.

Paraphrasing the pattern:

  Statement:  "2 plus 3 equals 6."
  Correction: "No, that's not correct.  If you're talking about arithmetic
in base 10, then 2 plus 3 equals 5, no debate permitted.  You might have
meant 2 plus 3 equals 5, or you might have meant 2 *times* 3 equals 6."
  Response:   "Numbers are not nouns."

It happens that way time after time.  I have repeatedly decided not to
react to him, but he repeatedly manages to escalate his pronouncements to
new and more dangerous levels of assumed authority.  Even his recent
disclaimers imply a real hubris, as he says "The Klingon Dictionary is an
excellent source of further study."  Implying that his grammar posts are a
good starting point.

>Furthermore,
>your attitude makes me want to pick on anything I can find wrong in your
>postings.  I don't like this feeling; I don't really want to do this.

Please do point out anything I say that is confusing or incorrect.  I'm
truly concerned that students/beginners have good information and good
examples of Klingon to emulate.

>yIghoHtaHQo'!  tlhIngan Hol taghwI'pu'vaD pab chovnatlhmey tIpoj!  tIDub neH!
> tIpovmoH!

Qu'wIj 'oHbe' Qu'vetlh'e'.  jIpojpa', pojnIS taD.




Back to archive top level