tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 21 06:33:28 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Inherently plural nouns and numbers
Philip:
> Since mentioning inherently plural nouns as possibly being similar to
> collective nouns in English, I wonder whether it's possible to use
> numbers with them, and if so, how.
>
> If we wash one glass, then {wa' HIvje' wISay'moH}. If we wash three
> glasses, then {wej HIvje'mey DISay'moH} or {wej HIvje' DISay'moH}
> (since the -mey is optional, especially when clear from the context
> such as the explicit number word or the verb prefix.)
>
> Now if we wash one plate, then {wa' jengva' wISay'moH} - I think
> that's pretty uncontroversial.
>
> But what if we wash three plates? Do we {wej ngop wISay'moH}? {wej
> jengva'mey wISay'moH}? Do we maybe have to add an explicitly countable
> word, like "three *pairs* of scissors" or "three *items* of furniture"
> in English - {wej ngop 'ay'(mey) DISay'moH} or {wej ngop
> chovnatlh(mey) DISay'moH} or the like? Something completely different?
>
> The "inherently plural nouns act like English collective nouns"
> approach would imply that you can't count them directly... while if
> they merely act as irregular plurals, then perhaps {vagh cha} for
> "five torpedoes" makes sense.
Okrand wrote WRT {mang}/{negh}:
KGT 49f: The word {mang} is used when the warrior under discussion is described in terms of his membership in a fighting unit (for example, as a crew member on an attack cruiser). Perhaps for this reason it is sometimes translated "soldier". The usual plural form of {mang} is a different word altogether: {negh} ("warriors, soldiers"). The word {mangpu'} is seldom used, but it is not ungrammatical. It carries with it the notion that there are individuals (more than one {mang}) making up the group; {negh} focuses on the group as a unit.
Note that "the usual plural" is the collective form {negh}. When the soldiers are being considered individually one can use {mangpu'}: e.g. "Who are those two soldiers outside your door? Only three soldiers were killed in the attack." Whether you must use {mangpu'} - or whether this applies only to {mang} or to other singular/plural pairs as well - isn't stated.
Have we ever seen an example of a number used with either an inherently singular or an inherently plural form?
I would say "Put those three plates {wej jengva'[pu']vetlh} on the table" vs. "Wash all those plates {ngop} in the sink!"
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol