<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I think you are leaning heavily upon the “an unknown or unspecified quantity†part of the gloss and skipping over the perhaps more meaningful “some†part of the gloss.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It did come first, after all. The rest is really there just to clarify the meaning of “someâ€.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It’s used like {Hoch} “all†or “HochHom†“most†in that it’s a grammatically unusual word, similar to a number, so it goes in front of a noun instead of after it as {law’} or {puS} would, unless you want an even more special meaning, as in {nuv ‘op} “some portion of the person†instead of {‘op nuv} “some peopleâ€, similar to {nuv Hoch} “all of the person†instead of {Hoch nuv} “all peopleâ€. Also, it can be used as a free-standing noun, again, like a number, or like {Hoch} or {HochHom}.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, it actually would be odd to use {‘op} with {law’} or {puS}, though not technically disallowed. For the most part, I don’t see it adding meaning to the adjectivals. {law’} and {puS} are already indefinite about the quantity. Why redundantly refer to the indefinite nature of the quantity? You could as easily say {law’law’} or {puSlaw’} if you wanted to highlight your uncertainty as to the quantity.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I will confess an aversion to things said of Klingon that start with “I just realized there’s no rule against…†or “It occurs to me that you could…â€, since it feels less like clarifying the boundaries of the language than just rudely poking it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is 100% my personal reaction, in that it feels like, “I know that I could spend decades actually using the language without ever needing to deal with this odd little grammatical issue, but I don’t really care enough about learning to use the language to get practice by using it. I’d rather just poke at it.â€</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There’s a huge tradition of poking at the language here, so I should just get over it. I’m working on it, okay? I’m just not quite there yet.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>charghwI’ ‘utlh<br class="">(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)</div></div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 22, 2021, at 8:33 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <<a href="mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" class="">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">The noun {'op} is given as "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity".</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I just realized that there's no rule against using the {'op} with {puS}/{law'}, thus specifying whether this "unknown quantity is of few or of many".</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">'op Duj puS vIjem</div><div class="">I detect an amount of ships which is of an unknown quantity (as far as their exact number is concerned), but I sense that they're few</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The question now would be, whether we could apply directly the {law'}/{puS} to the {'op}; but I think that although there's no rule against it, it would sound rather strange to say {'op puS Duj} since that could sound like "ships of few/several unspecified quantities".</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On the other hand though, perhaps we *could* say {'op vItlh} for "a high/great unspecified quantity". However, the question then would be what noun we could place the {'op vItlh} on; because the nouns that play well with {vItlh} i.e. the nouns that are "measurable or quantifiable but not necessary countable" don't sound that good with {'op}:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{'op Do}</div><div class="">a speed of unspecified quantity</div><div class="">(this sounds strange to me)<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{'op vItlh Do}</div><div class="">a speed of high/great unspecified quantity</div><div class="">(this sounds equally strange to me)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On the third hand though, perhaps we *could* use the {'op vItlh} "a high/great unspecified quantity" with nouns which are countable:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{'op Duj}</div><div class="">some ships</div><div class="">(sounds fine to me)<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{'op vItlh Duj}</div><div class="">ships of high/great unspecified quantity</div><div class="">(sounds equally fine to me)<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Go figure.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">~ Dana'an<br class=""></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>