tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 26 20:46:26 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Inherently plural nouns and numbers
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:49 AM, David Trimboli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On 11/22/2011 12:28 PM, Brent Kesler wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>As for KGT, it may seem strange to say "Always trust your instinct" in<br>English (what? I have just one?), but I see no reason why the concept<br>of instinct has to be plural. How many times do we say things like "I<br>
know it by instinct"? Not instincts, not one particular instinct, just<br>instinct.<br></div></blockquote><br>That's true, but if {Duj} represents that which can be translated either "instinct" or "instincts," what is the meaning of {Dujmey} in {Duj[mey] tIvoqtaH}, and why would you choose it over singular {Duj}?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't explain myself well. All I'm saying is that even the English word "instinct" can be singular, plural, or collective. We can talk about one instinct (eg, the instinct to survive), several instincts, (eg, the instinct to survive and the instinct to mate), or instinct as just a general intuitive power that doesn't really have a plural (eg, "I'm navigating by instinct").</div>
<div><br></div><div>In that case, {Dujmey} simply means "instincts", ie, it is the plural of {Duj}. {Dujmey tIvoqtaH} means you have several instincts and you should trust them. {Duj yIvoqtaH} means either that you have one and only one instinct, one particular instinct (out of several) that should be trusted in this particular case, or that you have a general intuitive power that you should trust.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:56 AM, David Trimboli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
TKW 27: The Klingon word for "instincts" is {Duj}, and it is<br>
grammatically correct to treat it as singular (a bundle or collection<br>
of instincts) or plural (individual instincts).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
It says that {Duj} can be grammatically singular ("a collection of instincts")—that is, it's an inherently plural noun—or that {Duj} can be grammatically plural (i.e., {Dujmey}), where a single {Duj} is a single instinct.<br>
<br>
In this case, both {DujlIj yIvoq} and {DujlIj tIvoq} are correct, but have a subtle difference. {DujlIj yIvoq} means "trust the collection of your instincts"; {DujlIj tIvoq} means "trust each of your instincts, taken individually.'</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div><div>If I understand your interpretation correctly, {Duj} is an irregular plural with no singular. So like {ngop} with no {jengva'}? Plus a special meaning for {ngopmey}? Does that mean talking about one particular instinct is impossible? Or that a single instinct MUST be explicitly marked as such, eg, {wa' Dujvam yIvoq}? I think that's a pretty big conclusion to take from the gloss of a proverb and an offhand remark from TKW, which is a cultural rather than linguistic text.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>I think {DujlIj yIvoq} can mean "trust the collection of your instincts, your general intuitive power" (collective) or "trust that one particular instinct that we've been talking about in this context" (singular), while {DujlIj tIvoq} means "Trust your several instincts" (plural; either as a group or each in its turn). In other words, that subtle difference is there only if we look for it.</div>
<div><br></div><div><div>One of the problems with studying Klingon is that Okrand's descriptions can be maddeningly imprecise, especially since he writes for the general public rather than fellow linguists. That leaves us trying to find hidden meaning in his words, even when he's just giving a quick and dirty interpretation that we shouldn't consider as normative. I think the three senses of "instinct" (singular, plural, and collective) fit nicely into what we've seen in the Klingon canon so far. That interpretation, plus the fact that plurals don't have to be explicitly marked, explains everything we've seen. I think treating {Duj} as an inherent plural that has no singular and behaves differently with the {-mey} suffix--while possible--is a rather shocking conclusion to draw from such little evidence.</div>
<div><br></div><div>bI'reng</div>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}