[tlhIngan Hol] *'op* and inherently plural nouns / *-ta'be'* / *Get responsible!*

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Nov 19 06:58:07 PST 2021

On 11/19/2021 9:07 AM, luis.chaparro at web.de wrote:
> 1. Is there anything wrong in using *'op* with inherently plural nouns, for example: *'op ngop*? The whole construction would remain grammatically singular, right?

I don't think we have a definitive answer to this question. Personally, 
I have no problem with *'op ngop* meaning exactly what you say. I 
believe we do know that you can use numbers with inherently plural 
nouns, so I see no reason you can't use number-like nouns in the same way.

> 2. If I want to say*She hasn't sold it*, I can say *ngevpu'be'*. What would *ngevta'be'* mean? That she set out to sell it, but she didn't accomplished it? Has *-ta'be'* always the meaning of failing? Or can we also use it just to negate that an action took place?

*-be'* seems to have a variable scope. Sometimes it applies directly to 
the element it's attached to; sometimes it applies to everything that 
comes before it. *ngevpu'be'* and *ngevta'be'* probably mean "not 
*ngevpu'*" and "not *ngevta'*."

I generally try not to think of suffix combinations as single units. It 
might not be useful to think of *-pu'be'* and *-ta'be'* as having 
distinct meanings from *-pu'* and *-ta',* because the *-be'* may not 
apply only to *-pu'* and *-ta'.***If I were to give a literal 
interpretation to *-pu'be'* and *-ta'be',* it would be "not perfective," 
which would seem to mean exactly the same thing as not including the 
perfective suffix at all, and so not be a useful combination.

> 3. To someone whose decision in a certain situation can have important consequences, I can say*Be responsible!*. That would be, I think, *yIngoy''eghmoH*. But if, 
> speaking to an inmature person, I say *Get responsible!* or *Become 
> responsible!*, would it be *yIngoy''eghchoHmoH* or just *yIngoy'choH*? 
> (I know there is the verb *moj*, but I would like to know how the imperative of state / quality verbs works).

I'd go with *yIngoy''eghchoHmoH,* but canon is inconsistent with the 
*-'eghmoH* rule when it comes to including *-choH.* If you use the 
*yIngoy'choH,* it will likely be accepted by whoever reads or hears it. 
What Klingons would think of it, I don't know.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211119/d5a42bdb/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list