[tlhIngan Hol] Does {vabDot} always require a verb ?

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> {Hoch} is grammatically singular. As a subject, it should call for the null prefix.
> Using {lu-} anyway will be understood, but it’s like saying “everyones”.

In this case, I would agree with you, as you're saying "any/every person/individual", rather than "everybody (taken together)".

However, I don't think it's the case that {Hoch} itself is intrinsically singular. On its own, we have at least one canonical example where it is explicitly plural:

-----------------------------------

Hoch qImmoH mu'meyDaj
ghob 'agh 'ej val
yIntaH 'e' luleghmo' chaH mer

All were bemused by his words,
Wise and full of spirit,
And astonished to see him alive.

(paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 7, Stanza 9)

-----------------------------------

One might point out that paq'batlh does contain a fair number of errors, and MO does sometimes forget the lu- prefix (I blame Maltz' frequent trips to Morska), so this is not necessarily the strongest evidence.

Still, this would be consistent with the way it's used as a quantifier (as described here: http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-06-holqed-05-2-a.txt ). Again, not really proof (since the number of the last noun would be what determines the grammatical number), but unless there's some other source negating it, I'd say the best bet is that {Hoch} can be either singular or plural.

Still, if one wishes to stay on the safe side, one can always throw on an explicitly plural noun to make it plural.

//loghaD

________________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 21:19
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does {vabDot} always require a verb ?

On Nov 23, 2018, at 9:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Suppose I want to say "everyone can become an officer, even my sheep".
> I could write {yaS lumojlaH Hoch, vabDot yaS mojlaH DI'raqwIj}.

{Hoch} is grammatically singular. As a subject, it should call for the null prefix. Using {lu-} anyway will be understood, but it’s like saying “everyones”.

> But could I just write instead, {yaS lumojlaH Hoch, vabDot DI'raqwIj} ?

“Additionally, my [sheep].” What about it? The sentence is incomplete. Can everyone be a sheep too? Can a sheep be an officer too? Either seems as likely/unlikely as the other.

> Do we necessarily need to use a verb with the {vabDot} ?

If you want to be grammatically proper, you need a verb. Why would you leave it off?

The Monopoly example repeats the verb:
{Qo'noS romuluS je boSuqlaH. vabDot tera' Qejbogh DIvI' ram boSuqlaH.}

-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org