tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 31 08:04:56 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yopwaH
Voragh:
> > Hebrew:
> > heaven - shamayim (dual)
> > life - Hayim (dual)
> > water - mayim (dual)
> > Jerusalem - Yerushalayim (dual)
> > G-d - Elohim (pl!)
~mark:
>It isn't clear that mayim and shamayim are dual and not plural; since
>they're treated as mass-nouns in Hebrew as they are in English, and just
>construe grammatically as plurals, they might be simple plurals. The
>form is a dual-looking form, but that doesn't prove things.
When studying Levantine archaeology, these apparently dual forms were often
explained as having to do with ancient Near Eastern views of
cosmology: the waters below (Earth) and below (the Abyss), the skies above
and below, this life vs. the afterlife, etc. Why these dual forms were
preserved in Hebrew and not in other ancient Semitic languages was never
adequately explained.
>Similarly, Jerusalem might *look* dual, but it isn't at all! Jerusalem
>is singular and feminine, like all cities are. In a sentence,
>adjectives and verbs agreeing with Jerusalem are in singular feminine.
Similarly, *Yerushalayim* is understood as being a version of *ir(u)
Shalem* (the city of [the god] Shalem), with the apparent dual ending
*-ayim* referring to the two parts of the city: the upper acropolis (Mount
Zion and/or the Temple Mount) and the lower city. I never bought this
explanation. Most cities in the ancient world consisted of two parts, so
why was this "dual" form preserved in this one name and not the
others? Particularly in the One True God's own city?
~mark:
>Just because it looks plural doesn't mean it is ('achot/sister is
>singular, and looks plural).
Or why the plural of *ishah* (woman) is *nashim" (with the masculine plural
suffix *-im*). <g>
>In the same way, Elohim when used to mean "God with a capital G" (the
>One God the Bible is always talking about), although it looks plural
>(and is plural in other uses) construes as a singular masculine noun.
>It also means "gods with a lowercase g", i.e. "other" gods, as opposed
>to big-G God, and in that case it is treated as masculine plural, as one
>might expect. "Adonay", also a word used for God's name, is also
>technically plural in form; it means "my lords" when used in mundane
>contexts. I think these have to do with a sort of plural of respect.
Many Christians explain this is as a clear - if misunderstood - reference
to the Trinity!
>I recently heard a great way of thinking about the way Japanese does
>things. In Japanese, all nouns are mass nouns! [....]
Stephen:
> >Another way to look at it that may help to understand the Japanese
> >(and Klingon?) point of view better is to consider nouns as neither
> >singular nor plural, but simply unmarked for number.
QeS:
>>Absolutely. In Klingon, {paq vIghaj} could be either "I have the book" or "I
>>have the books".
>>
>>Nouns in Klingon are only explicitly singular when verbal or pronominal
>>agreement dictates it (thus, {paq wIghaj} can only mean "we have the book")
>>or when their plurals are suppletive ({jengva'} "plate", for instance).
>>Plural markers are an entirely optional category in Klingon, and generally,
>>a noun that carries no number marking is... er... unmarked for number.
Absolutely. But the question now becomes: Why do Klingons, then, use
plural suffixes - three of them! - at all? Why don't they rely on the verb
prefixes and context?
I wonder... Is there a tendency to use plural suffixes more with ambiguous
3rd person zero-prefixes than with prefixes which clearly differentiate
singular and plural subjects and objects?
Or, is the "unnecessary" use of plural suffixes (and pronouns) more a
redundant feature of the spoken language than the written? After all in
writing you can stop and re-read an ambiguous sentence or confusing
paragraph, but you can't do that with conversation. (You can ask them to
repeat themselves, of course, but that quickly becomes tedious.)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons