From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol
Am 27.05.2026 um 15:41 schrieb SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol: On the other hand, I remember earlier discussions on this list where it was said that we should not impose English Grammar on the Klingon language.
I'm not imposing English grammar on Klingon. I'm not saying that {peng} is exactly like the English word "torpedo" without a plural inflection. (Heck, I doubt English really has a concept of an inherently singular noun.) I'm starting with a term Okrand uses to describe something in Klingon, "inherently plural noun," and recognizing that their singular counterparts are, in fact, inherently singular, and that this would be a good term for them.
There were many situation where somebody tried to use English grammar terminology and tried to find it in Klingon, but we had to say that it doesn't exist in Klingon.
But I'm not borrowing from English grammar. I've never heard a linguist use the phrase "inherently singular noun" when referring to English grammar. A quick Google search suggests that some languages, not English, do have such a thing. One point about English raised is that uncountable nouns in English use the singular form, but that's not what we're talking about here (you can't say "three furnitures").
A noun like {peng} isn't inherently singular because it can't be pluralized. It's inherently singular because the singularness is inherent to the noun.
A noun like {peng} can't do this. {peng} is specifically one torpedo.
But it is still possible. Please follow my path:
{wej cha} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct {wej pengmey} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct
TKD say that when a number is used, the suffix may be omitted, so: {wej peng} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct.
I agree that {peng} is a singular form, but depending on usage, this phrase can transport the plural meaning.
This is no different than the {pengmey} example I cited above. You're using the word {wej} to impart the plural meaning; the word {peng} carries no plural meaning at all. Inherently, the word is singular. If I say {nuH}, this means both "weapon" and "weapons." It is neither inherently singular nor inherently plural. If I say {wej nuH}, this is a plural phrase, but the plurality comes from the {wej}, not the {nuH}. We know that {nuH} can be singular or plural. So when I say {wej peng}, this is an identical situation. The plurality comes from the {wej}, not the {peng}. {peng} remains inherently singular. In other words, being singular is part of the MEANING of {peng}. To a Klingon, {peng} doesn't just mean "torpedo"; it specifically means "singular torpedo." Similarly, being plural is part of the MEANING of {cha}. To a Klingon, {cha} doesn't just mean "torpedoes"; it means "plural torpedoes." You cannot remove the "singular" from the meaning of {peng}, just as you cannot remove the {plural} from the meaning of {cha}: these meanings are baked into the words. Yes, you can pluralize {peng}, but you're saying "three singular torpedoes."
- {wa' cha} is nonsense, because {cha} is inherently plural.
It's probably nonsense, but there is something to be said for the idea that {cha} means something like "collection of torpedoes." You can have one collection of torpedoes. At least, you can in English. I don't buy this argument myself, but I present it as a demonstration that the claim that {wa' cha} is nonsense is not as definite as your statement makes it.