[tlhIngan Hol] Why not law'wI'pu' ?

[Ed Bailey]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:03 PM SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>
> It could be translated as "the many," just as *qanwI'* can be translated
> "the old."
>
> Actually, I want to counter this. *qanwI'* can be translated *the old*
> only in the sense that plural suffixes are optional in Klingon, and
> *qanwI'pu'* means *the old.* Assuming no dropped plural suffix, *qanwI'*
> only means *old one.*
>
Even *qanwI'* singular could be translated as *the old*, if the speaker is
generalizing. Do' DIvI' Hol wa' qech nelbe' tlhIngan ngIq mu'. nel net
jalchugh, Dalqu'choH tlhIngan Hol.

> TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of *-wI',* and it's always explained
> as *thing which does* or *one who does,* and even once as *thing which is*
> (we have since gotten canon for *one who is*). Nowhere is it explained as *things
> which do**, **those who do, things which are* or *those who are.*
>
> I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's rigid so much as
> careful not to stray beyond what we know *-wI'* does.
>
> Again, I'm not saying that the language is necessarily this specific, just
> that the evidence we actually have seems to point this way. Okrand could
> easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, *law'wI'pu'* means *the many,*" and
> there'd be no problem. You just can't get there with what we have now
> without making an assumption.
>
I'm with you on disliking *law'wI'pu'*, but only because *law'* is
inherently plural when applied to count nouns. It grates on my ear for the
same reason **ngopmey* would.

Simply because Okrand has described* the action of *-wI'* using the
singular nouns *one* and *thing* does not mean he intended this syntactic
marker to be incompatible with inherently plural verbs. By the same token,
one could take his exact words as evidence that a verb+*-wI'* cannot refer
to mass noun, since these are never referred to as *one* or *thing*. I do
not expect he'd object to the language of TKD 3.2.2 being understood as *that
which does/**is*.

* I think "describe" is a more accurate term than "define" for how Okrand
presents the Klingon language, with all that that implies.

~mIp'av

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190222/67d78527/attachment-0016.htm>