[tlhIngan Hol] 'op after the noun

[De'vID]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 14:38, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> The {'op} is defined as "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity",
> and in the Ca'Non example of Skybox 7 it is used as {'op SuvwI'} i.e
> in front of a countable noun which doesn't have the plural suffix. The
> relevant part of that sentence is:
>
> {DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS}
>
> Suppose we say {'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS}. Then this could mean either
> "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of an orange", or "the fox
> ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges".
>
> Perhaps one could argue that based on the Ca'Non example of the Skybox
> 7, "the 'op before a singular noun is to be interpreted as referring
> to a plural number of that noun". But I don't know if one could argue
> that, since in this Ca'Non example, interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being
> singular is impossible. Because, if interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being
> singular was possible, then that would mean that "the klingon vessel
> pagh has some/an unspecified quantity of a warrior", i.e. on the pagh
> happen to serve some of the most skilled legs/arms/DaynguHDu'/whatever
> of a warrior in the klingon fleet.
>

I think that {'op} works like {Hoch} and {pagh}. One piece of evidence
pointing to this is that we have {HochDIch}, {Hochlogh}, {paghDIch},
{paghlogh}, {'opDIch}, and {'oplogh} (the last two having been revealed
recently for Alice in Wonderland).

If that's the case, then {'op} followed by an explicitly plural noun means
"some of the X's, taken collectively", and {'op} followed by a noun which
isn't explicitly plural means "some X's, considered individually".

I think if you want to express some part of something, the {'op} follows
the noun.

{'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the oranges, considered
individually"
{'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the oranges, considered
collectively"
{na'ran 'op Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the orange"

Of course in star trek everything is possible, on the other hand
> though, I think that one could come to the following conclusion with
> regards to the {'op}:
>
> Placing the {'op} before a countable noun which has no plural suffix,
> could mean either "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of that
> noun (singular)" or "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of a
> number of that noun". While placing the {'op} before an uncountable
> noun can only mean ""some/an unspecified quantity of that noun
> (singular)".
>
> Of course, I don't know for sure if this conclusion would be correct..
>
> But now let's get back to the fox..
>
> If I write {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, then this obviously means
> ""the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges". But my problem
> is that this is ambiguous in the following way:
>
> Did the fox walk in the house, find an unspecified quantity of oranges
> and ate them all ? Or did the fox walk into the house, found 40
> oranges and ate some of them ?
>
> And if the fox indeed ate only some of the oranges, then why not write
> {na'ranmey 'op Soppu' qeSHoS} ? After all, we *can* write {pItSa'
> HochHom Soppu' vIghro' tIQ} for "the ancient cat ate almost all of the
> pizza".


Those aren't analogous. The analogous thing would be {pItSa'mey HochHom}
(with an explicitly plural noun), which would probably mean "most of the
pizzas".

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220404/bb66f3b9/attachment-0015.htm>