[tlhIngan Hol] {ngIq} again

[Ed Bailey]

>
>
>
{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.

Also De'vID, you have caused me to rethink my previous interpretation that
{ngIq} implied that all the people of Qam-Chee were killed. I think it's
implied, but not by {ngIq}; I now take it that {ngIq} just means they were
killed individually, however many were killed.

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. Apparently there are no canon examples of
this, but my intention was that {?nuHmey ngIq} and {?nuHmey Hoch} meant
"each of the weapons" and "all of the weapons," specifically referring back
to a set of weapons I had previously mentioned, as opposed to weapons in
general, in the way {nIn Hoch} refers specifically in context to the fuel
the ship started out with. Do you think this is complete nonsense or is it
worth asking Dr. Okrand?

~mIp'av

* I dislike the term "inherently plural" because of the potential for
confusion. It once came up with no context to tell me whether it meant
plural in meaning but grammatically singular or singular in meaning but
grammatically plural (like "scissors").
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220613/44e0b4f1/attachment-0015.htm>