[tlhIngan Hol] *'op* and inherently plural nouns / *-ta'be'* / *Get responsible!*
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...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol