<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/2/2020 9:16 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:nldlafike765plqkt80lvksm.1599052276108@email.android.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
div#d_1599052607714 p {font-family:; font-size:9.0pt; color:#000000}
-->
</style>
<div id="d_1599052607714" style="font-family:; font-size:9.0pt;
color:#000000"><br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">jIjatlh
vIneH: "we see three targets".</p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">DuH wa': </p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">wej ray'
wIlegh </p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">DuH cha': </p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">wej ray'
DIlegh </p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">nuq 'oH DuH
lugh'e' ?</p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">DaH.. chaq
jatlhqang vay': <<< < wej DoS DIlegh > yIlo'.
>>></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">'a {DoS}
'oHbe' QInvam meq'e'; inherently plural nouns 'oH QInvam
meq'e'.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>My answer to this question is the same as usual: if there's canon
suggesting an answer, consider how significant the evidence is. If
there is no canon suggesting an answer, we don't know the answer.
I do not have the time right now to do an extensive search. I
can't think of any examples off the top of my head.</p>
<p>For my money, I'd go for <b>wej ray' wIlegh.</b> The targets are
plural, so we use <b>ray'</b> instead of <b>DoS,</b> we count
them with <b>wej,</b> and we treat the whole thing as
grammatically singular with <b>wI-.</b><br>
</p>
<p>But I've noticed something interesting about how TKD presents
plurals. It doesn't say <b>-pu', -Du', -mey</b> are the plural
suffixes but they're optional. It says "plurality is indicated by
a pronoun, whether a verb prefix... or a full word..., or by
context." After a couple of paragraphs, it then says "it is never
incorrect to add a plural suffix to a noun referring to more than
one entity..."</p>
<p>This is interesting because it presents Klingon plurals as not
the default means of expressing plurality. Pronouns (including
words and prefixes) are, followed by context, and only then
followed by suffixes. But this is never the way we teach plurals:
we always teach the suffixes, and THEN we say they're optional. We
encourage their use by default, only dropping them when everything
is clear. I wonder if this has been the wrong approach. It might
be appropriate to use plural suffixes a lot less than we do.<br>
</p>
<p>I'm sure an examination of canon would show tons of plural
suffixes where they're simply not needed, and the idea of
non-suffixed nouns being the plural default is not supported by
the evidence. But all the same, it may be a good idea not to take
the "use a suffix, but it's optional" approach for granted.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>