# [tlhIngan Hol] Is Quv singular or plural ?

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Aug 9 08:08:57 PDT 2017

```On 8/9/2017 10:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> I meant, is {Quv} inherently singular or plural ? The way that {pIgh}
> "ruins" is inherently singular ? (if I remember correctly).

The question is really, does *Quv* represent multiple things packaged
together in a single noun, or just one thing?

Imagine a map with a grid system on it. There is a point on the map. You
can read the grid system to identify the exact position on the map. The
reading you get is the *Quv.* Is that the reading or the sum of separate
readings? In English, it depends on which word we use. If we call that
/coordinates,/ we're saying it's the combination of an x-coordinate and
a y-coordinate (or whatever coordinate system you're using); it's plural
because we're talking about a measurement with multiple components. If
we call that /position,/ we're saying it's the unique representation on
the map as measured with the grid system. That's singular, because the
components are not being described.

So we don't really know whether *Quv* is a collective noun or not, but
it's not really important. The only time its collectiveness or not would
be important is when someone wants to explicitly add a *-mey* to the
word, which is usually optional anyway. I believe it is not a collective
noun, because in addition to making perfect sense as a singular concept,
we're not given a separate, singular form of it. There is no separate
noun /coordinate./ I think the confusion simply comes from the way
English uses the word. I think *Quvmey* refers to multiple points on a
grid, and they don't have to be scattered all about.

--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170809/31af1817/attachment-0005.htm>
```