[tlhIngan Hol] Pluralizing inherently plural nouns

[mayqel qunenoS]

(KGT 49f)L
> 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
(KGT 33-34)
> {-mey} to these nouns [...] to indicate that the items are scattered about ({jengva'mey}, plates scattered all over the place)

Does adding the {-pu'} to the singular form of an inherently plural
noun, as in the case of {mangpu'}, indicate "soldiers scattered all
over the place" ?

(KGT 33-34):
> Children seem to be aware of the existence of the inherently plural forms, however, for they
> use them as well, though usually with the suffix {-mey} superfluously appended: {chamey} (torpedoeses),
> {ngopmey} (plateses).

So, as I understand this - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - it
isn't grammatically wrong to add a plural suffix, to an inherently
plural noun; it is just that the resulting word/meaning is
strange/awkward.

(KGT 33-34):
> Children, however, tend to use the plural pronoun {bIH} (they) with {ngop} (as well as
> with {jengva'mey} and the redundantly suffixed {ngopmey}):  {nuqDaq bIH ngop'e'?} ("Where are the plates?").

And here:

The use of {bIH} with {ngop}, is grammatically wrong.
The use of {bIH} with {ngopmey}, isn't grammatically wrong.
The {nuqDaq bIH ngop'e'?} ("Where are the plates?"), is grammatically wrong.

If these conclusions are wrong, then someone please correct me.

qunnoq

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> Or you could use the singular form {DoS} "target".  E.g. {DoSmey} "targets scattered all about" (TKD).
>
> Many inherently plural nouns have a singular equivalent:
>
> DoS/ray'                target(s)
> jengva'/ngop            plate(s)
> mang/negh               soldier(s)
> peng/cha                torpedo(es)
> qempa'/no'              ancestor(s)
> Sup/jo                  resource(s)
> vIj/chuyDaH             thruster(s)
>
> It is possible to use plural suffixes with these singular forms when stressing individuality over the collective.  For example, see Okrand's discussion of {mang}:
>
> (KGT 49f)L  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.
>
> But be careful:  Sometimes doing so may be perceived as just an error:
>
> (KGT 33-34):   Another grammatical feature of Klingon about which children frequently become confused involves nouns that are inherently plural, such as {cha} (torpedoes) and{ ngop} (plates [for eating]), as opposed to their singular counterparts {peng} (torpedo) and {jengva'} (plate). Instead of using the special plural forms, children tend forms plurals of these words by simply adding the plural suffix {-mey} to the singular forms ({pengmey, jengva'mey}) ... Adults also add {-mey} to these nouns, but they do so to indicate that the items are scattered about ({jengva'mey}, plates scattered all over the place). For children who say {jengva'mey}, it apparently means simply plates; that is, it is nothing more than the plural form of {jengva'}. Children seem to be aware of the existence of the inherently plural forms, however, for they use them as well, though usually with the suffix {-mey} superfluously appended: {chamey} (torpedoeses), {ngopmey} (plateses). Inherently plural n
>  ouns are considered singular as far as how they fit into the overall grammatical structure. Thus, the singular pronoun {'oH} (it) is used for both {jengva'} (plate) and {ngop} (plates) in sentences such as {nuqDaq 'oH jengva''e'?} ("Where is the plate?") and {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} ("Where are the plates?"). Children, however, tend to use the plural pronoun {bIH} (they) with {ngop} (as well as with {jengva'mey} and the redundantly suffixed {ngopmey}):  {nuqDaq bIH ngop'e'?} ("Where are the plates?").
>
> --Voragh
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of Lieven
>
> Am 16.08.2017 um 15:39 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
>> If have an inherently plural noun, e.g. {ray'} for "targets", and we
>> want to express "many targets", then what do we say ?
>>
>> {ray'mey}
>
> Pluralizing aplural noun is like saying "targetses" or "mens".
>
>> or {ray' law'} ?
>
> This can never be wrong; it follows grammar perfectly.
>
> --
> Lieven L. Litaer
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org