[tlhIngan Hol] inherently plural nouns when they are implied

[SuStel]

On 6/1/2022 8:38 AM, D qunen'oS 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.
>
> 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?

*ray'* is an *'oH, *not a *bIH.* You can substitute pronouns for nouns, 
and you can elide pronouns. So when you say *ray' luleghlaHbe'; vabDot 
lu'aghtaHvIS jIH,* the elided word between *vabDot* and *lu'aghtaHvIS* 
is *'oH.* There is no point at which you stop thinking of the entity as 
singular.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220601/c2acc8f0/attachment-0016.htm>