[tlhIngan Hol] inherently plural nouns when they are implied

[D qunen'oS]

SuStel:
> You can substitute pronouns for nouns, and you can elide pronouns

I wasn't aware of that. I thought that the thing elided was decided by
context. So, just to see if I understand this correctly:

nIHIvpu' Ha'DIbaH; DaqaDpu'mo', nIHIvpu'.
the animals attacked you; because you provoked them they attacked you.

If I understand correctly, the elided subject of {nIHIvpu'} is they/chaH,
and *not* {Ha'DIbaHmey}, right?

jIH:
> QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH.
> QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey.
De'vID:
> Why did you write {jIH} in the first sentence and {jIHmey} in the second?

I think I wrote it this way out of habit. I usually omit the plural
suffixes when there's the prefix {lu-}, and I usually place them whenever
the {lu-} is missing.

De'vID:
> 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)"

I've totally forgotten about that message! I checked, and indeed I had it
in my archive, but I'd totally forgotten it. Anyway, I (re)read it, so
things became clearer. Thanks.

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220601/54c65277/attachment-0015.htm>