[tlhIngan Hol] {ngIq} again

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 10:26:34 PDT 2022

Le lun. 13 juin 2022 à 18:11, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> {ngIq X} was previously described as inherently plural* (i.e.,
> grammatically singular but plural in meaning). Obviously it doesn't have to
> be plural in meaning, since {ngIq tonSaw lo'} in PB refers to only one
> move, so people's notes may need revision.

In the same article that I think you're referring to (in the qepHom'a' 2017
booklet) where {ngIq X} was described as "inherently plural", it's also
explained how {ngIq tonSaw'} could be translated as "a single move". I
think the way it's written there is a bit confusing, and it just meant that
{wI-} (and not {DI-}) is the correct prefix in {ngIq mIch wIHotlh} despite
the fact that the meaning of the sentence is that multiple sectors are
scanned. (It was specific to those examples where the sentence applied to
multiple things, and "since it refers to more than one X" really means
"when it refers to more than one X") There's no new information in what I

Another thing you've made me reconsider: I have definitely used both {ngIq}
> and {Hoch} following a plural noun, and while intelligible, it may have
> been totally unidiomatic usage.

I don't think this works. Dr. Okrand considered {Qapla'meywIj Hoch}, which
appeared in the first edition of the paq'batlh, to have been a mistake.
{Hoch} following an uncountable noun means "all of X", as in {nIn Hoch}.
See my post "{Hoch} before and after a noun" about this.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220613/6daae4ff/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list