[tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"

[mayqel qunenoS]

nIqolay Q:
> I do see where you're coming from here. If {vIghro'mey} refers to
> a group of cats, and {Hoch vIghro'mey} means "all cats, all the
> cats", then if {maH} refers to a group of people, then why wouldn't
> {Hoch maH} be used to mean "all of us, all the people in the
> group of us"?

Yes, you're right. That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

Anyway, although I can understand (or think I can) the reasons presented so
far against the use of {maH Hoch}, unfortunately I cannot *feel* them. If
that makes sense.

Perhaps, it's the way I'm influenced by Greek on this matter, still, I
realize that since there is such controversy on this matter it is best if I
refrain from using it.

So, I'll just settle for a humble..

{vIghro'mey DImuSHa'. naDev muS pagh'e'}

Perhaps, using the time-honored-qeylIS-approved method of writing in a
retarded-multiple-sentence-way, even if it is in order to say the simplest
things, is indeed the way to go..

~ nI'ghma

On Jan 30, 2018 5:54 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> DloraH:
>> > But "we", by its nature, refers to more than one entity.
>> > vIghro' is singular.
>>
>> I'm afraid I can't understand the point you are trying to make.
>>
>> If we say {Hoch vIghro'} then we mean "each cat"". If we say {Hoch
>> vIghro'mey} then we mean "all cats". By the same rationale {Hoch maH}
>> must mean "all we".
>>
>> vIghro'mey = many cats
>> maH = us (a number of people being considered together). (The {-mey}
>> is included in the concept of {maH}).
>
>
> Technically {​maH} would include the concept of {-pu'}!
>
> I do see where you're coming from here. If {vIghro'mey} refers to a group
> of cats, and {Hoch vIghro'mey} means "all cats, all the cats", then if
> {maH} refers to a group of people, then why wouldn't {Hoch maH} be used to
> mean "all of us, all the people in the group of us"? (Or at least, why
> aren't the other Klingonists like myself using it that way, since Maltz
> hasn't weighed in one way or another.)
>
> I think the distinction here is between a plural noun and a noun that
> collectively refers to a group. For instance, {Hoch ghom} would mean "each
> group", not "all of the members of the group", and {Hoch ghommey} would
> mean "all groups". So we're left with the question: is {maH} similar to
> {vIghro'mey} or to {ghom}? It's grammatically plural, like {vIghro'mey},
> but refers to its constituents as a whole and not as individuals, like
> {ghom}. Some of the posters here, like myself, are treating it more like
> {ghom}. At least for me, I'm doing this because it feels like the "treats
> the group as a whole" element is more important than the "grammatically
> plural" element.
>
> So if {maH} does work like {ghom}, then {Hoch maH} would refer to "each
> 'group of us'", and it's somewhat difficult to understand quite what that
> would mean. (I'm thinking of the TNG episode where they encountered
> hundreds of Enterprises from parallel universes. Someone on the bridge crew
> might refer to the totality of the various parallel bridge crews as {Hoch
> maH}. Many weird constructions involving pronouns would only really make
> sense in cases of multiple or confused identities. They'd probably be
> ungrammatical, but the weirdness of the construction would reflect the
> weirdness of the situation. {'ach DoS vIchIlqa'.}) We know that {Hoch}
> following a noun means something like "all of the given noun, the entirety
> of the noun", and following a group noun, it would seem to mean "all the
> members of that group" rather than "all the groups". So that's why I
> initially suggested {maH Hoch}.
> ​
> Of course, this is all speculation. (I'd like to think it's
> reasonably-informed speculation.)​ It's possible, for instance, that you
> can't use pronouns in a {Hoch} construction at all, and you'd need to
> rephrase it as something like {ghommaj Hoch} "the entirety of our group".
> However, we don't know one way or another, and my general inclination in
> such ambiguous circumstances is to not assume something is forbidden.
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180202/0a08fe2a/attachment.htm>