[tlhIngan Hol] inherently plural nouns when they are implied

[Iikka Hauhio]

In Swedish there are grammatical genders called common and neuter gender. The neuter gender is the "default" gender that is used when the gender of the word is not known, and after the word is introduced, people switch to the correct gender.

For example: Vad är det? – Den är en hund. (What is it? It's a dog) Notice how the first speaker says det while the second speaker says den, as hund is a common gender word.

I think something similar would happen in Klingon, so I imagine this conversation:

'Iv chaH?
– negh ghaH.

In situations like this, I expect that there can be some variance between speakers. Maybe some repeat chaH as the asker used it. Maybe some first start using chaH and then switch when they realize that they must use ghaH. Maybe some switch back when they want to use another word with a normal plural.

Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, June 1st, 2022 at 16.29, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 14:39, D qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Suppose I'm telling the following story.
>>
>> There's a captain whose crew is incompetent. They have the targets in the screens in front of them, but they still can't see them. So the captain says:
>>
>> "Idiots.. They can't see the targets, even when the screens display them.."
>>
>> Which of the two should I write?
>>
>> QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH.
>>
>> QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey.
>
> Why did you write {jIH} in the first sentence and {jIHmey} in the second? In any case, if {ray'} is the elided object pf {'agh} and the subject is plural, then it should be {lu'aghtaHvIS} (using the they-it prefix).
>
> I sent a message to the mailing list with the subject "inherently plural nouns and collection nouns for groups of people (in the paq'batlh)" quoting a part of an exchange between Dr. Okrand and myself about this:
> http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-February/019433.html
>
>> So I guess the question is this:
>>
>> When at a point of a passage an inherently plural noun has been stated, but in the subsequent story this noun is omitted (elided I think is the term), do we treat the thing described as singular or do we treat it as plural?
>>
>> Is the inherently plural noun treated as singular only when it is written, or are the things described by that noun to be considered as something singular for the duration of the remaining story, even when the inherently plural noun which describes them is omitted/elided?
>
> Quoting the relevant portion of the message I cited above, the 1st edition of the paq'batlh had this sentence:
>
> {'uQ'a' luSop neghwI' 'e' vIchaw' / chaHvaD 'Iw HIq vInob / vaj tlhutlhlaH 'e' luSIQlaHbe'}
> "I will let my soldiers feast, / Give them blood wine / Until they can stand no more!"
>
> Dr. Okrand noted that {negh} should be treated grammatically as singular throughout, so the above is in error. Correcting just this error would result in:
> {'uQ'a' Sop neghwI' 'e' vIchaw' / ghaHvaD 'Iw HIq vInob / vaj tlhutlhlaH e' SIQlaHbe'}
>
> Note that {SIQlaHbe'} is correct (and not {luSIQlaHbe'}), even though the subject is not explicit, because {negh} is grammatically singular. Note also that that isn't the final revision of the sentence as it will appear in the 2nd edition, as it has been further revised (but the further revisions are not relevant to your question).
>
> --
>
> De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220601/0941c56f/attachment-0002.htm>