On 8/9/2017 10:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I meant, is {Quv} inherently singular or plural ? The way that {pIgh} "ruins" is inherently singular ? (if I remember correctly).
The question is really, does *Quv* represent multiple things packaged together in a single noun, or just one thing? Imagine a map with a grid system on it. There is a point on the map. You can read the grid system to identify the exact position on the map. The reading you get is the *Quv.* Is that the reading or the sum of separate readings? In English, it depends on which word we use. If we call that /coordinates,/ we're saying it's the combination of an x-coordinate and a y-coordinate (or whatever coordinate system you're using); it's plural because we're talking about a measurement with multiple components. If we call that /position,/ we're saying it's the unique representation on the map as measured with the grid system. That's singular, because the components are not being described. So we don't really know whether *Quv* is a collective noun or not, but it's not really important. The only time its collectiveness or not would be important is when someone wants to explicitly add a *-mey* to the word, which is usually optional anyway. I believe it is not a collective noun, because in addition to making perfect sense as a singular concept, we're not given a separate, singular form of it. There is no separate noun /coordinate./ I think the confusion simply comes from the way English uses the word. I think *Quvmey* refers to multiple points on a grid, and they don't have to be scattered all about. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name