[tlhIngan Hol] how is the {mapIm ngIq maH} correct ?

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Oct 2 08:29:33 PDT 2019


On 10/2/2019 11:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
> > So go back to Hoch maH. Do you take the
> > set of us-es as each us performing the
> > action?
>
> ok, I understand this argument.
>
> But here is what confuses me:
>
> Couldn't the {maH} in the {Hoch maH} construction, be understood as 
> describing lets say ten klingons, thus making the {maH} equivalent to 
> a plural noun ?
>
> If context made it clear, that there are only ten klingons, then 
> wouldn't we have: maH = ten klingons ?
>
> So, if we can say {Hoch tlhInganpu'} to say "all klingons", then why 
> not say {Hoch maH} for "all (of) us" ?

Any given *maH* may happen to refer to ten Klingons, but it is not 
grammatically equivalent to saying *wa'maH tlhInganpu'.* *maH* and 
*tlhInganpu'* are grammatically very different.

Watch that logic fail: If we can consider *maH* to refer to ten 
Klingons, and if we can say *HoDpu' maH* /We are captains,/ then does it 
follow that we can say *HoDpu' tlhInganpu'?*

Please remember my conclusion. It's not "*Hoch maH* is definitely 
wrong"; it's "*Hoch maH* can't be clearly derived from grammatical 
rules." There are issues, confounded by a superficial similarity to the 
English equivalent.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191002/b0eb698b/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list