[tlhIngan Hol] paSlogh

[nIqolay Q]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as
> being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in
> klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists.
>
> qunnoq
>

We have no idea, because {paSlogh} has not been used outside of that
particular dictionary entry. The canon isn't very clear. Many of the other
intentionally inherently plural nouns in TKD also have singular forms
provided, whereas {paSlogh} doesn't. Does that mean it wasn't intended as
an inherently plural noun? On the other hand, {Quv} is an inherently plural
noun, but no singular version "coordinate" is provided. But, on the
gripping hand, {Quv} is from the TKD appendix, which is shorter and less
elaborated on than the entries in TKD. So who can say? Well, I know one guy
who can, but Maltz doesn't post on the mailing list. Maybe it's similar to
{qurgh}, which is translated as "bean, beans", and can refer to a single
bean or presumably a collective group of beans taken as a whole (like how a
bunch of rice grains are just "rice"). Or maybe it's not like that at all.
We don't know.

In weird canon corner-cases like this, where's no clear answer, I feel like
the best you can do is to take a shot based on what else you know and
explain your reasoning if someone has an issue with it. Either someone with
better reasoning or more knowledge of canon will come along and provide
some clarification, or they'll just have to say "That doesn't sound right,
but I don't know enough about {paSlogh} to dispute it."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170816/6ccd6ed6/attachment-0017.htm>