tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 04 17:27:15 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Savan (was: Basic grammar question)

McArdle (

--- QeS 'utlh <> wrote:

> I actually did receive mI'qey's original message,
> but for some reason my response seems to have been
> eaten again. But fortunately it's given me some more
> time to mull over the question.
> ghItlhpu' mI'qey, ja':
> >As a (the?) perpetrator of {Hoch Savan}, I'd be
> glad
> >to know how to say this more acceptably.
> In English we're used to
> adding the qualifier "all" to disambiguate between
> second person singular and second person plural.

One clarification:  this is certainly true in some
dialects, but it's not a regular feature of my own
speech or writing (in speech I use "you guys" -- never
"you all" -- if I really feel the need to
disambiguate).  I'm also quite familiar with a number
of languages that make an explicit singular/plural
distinction in the second person, and I've never felt
a need to employ extra disambiguation when using them.

> >Would {Hoch tlhiH Savan} serve? Or does this run
> afoul
> >of the injunction SuStel cites against using
> pronouns as
> >nouns except for "emphasis or added clarity"?
> Contra SuStel's opinion, I don't think it's
> ungrammatical, but I would say {Hoch tlhIH Savan}
> only if you specifically want to say "all of you",
> as opposed to, for instance, {'op tlhIH} "some of
> you" or {pagh tlhIH} "none of you". I think this
> falls perfectly well under the umbrella of "added
> clarity".

In using {Hoch Savan} I was aiming beyond the simple
"you (pl.)" to emphasize that my salutation was
global, i.e., directed at everyone on the list and not
just those who were actively taking part in the

> And as for how {Hoch tlhIH} would be interpreted,
> I'm not sure that {Hoch tlhIH} would be interpreted
> as ??"each youses" any more than {Hoch cha} would be
> interpreted as ??"each torpedoeses" (although I
> don't think we have any examples of {Hoch} with an
> inherently plural noun, so canon is no help there).
> But {Hoch tlhIH} does seem to require the
> possibility of {Hoch SoH} "each of you, separately",
> and I can't decide yet if I'd accept that or not.
> However, whichever way you go, I do agree with
> SuStel that {Hoch tlhIH Savan} is not something
> you'd usually see in ordinary Klingon speech.
> {Savan} alone is enough for what you're looking for.
> QeS 'utlh
> tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI' / Grammarian of the
> Klingon Language Institute
> not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
> (Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
> - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

Savan.  QeS 'utlh, qavan.  SuStel, qavan.  Hoch,

-- mI'qey

Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.

Back to archive top level