I see no reason we can't use terminology that doesn't appear in TKD if it aptly describes something. I'm not saying we should force others to use such terms; I'm just remarking that the community has somehow avoided this particular phrase. 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 {nuH} is neither singular nor plural. It can be used to mean either, both, or neither all at once. nuH Suq ghoqwI'. "The spy obtains the weapon." "The spy obtains the weapons." "The spies obtain the weapons." A noun like {peng} can't do this. {peng} is specifically one torpedo. *Inherently,* it never refers to multiple torpedoes. You could say {pengmey} to refer to torpedoes scattered about, but adding -mey isn't inherent meaning. The argument isn't that you can't pluralize an inherently singular noun; it's that its inherent meaning is specifically singular. So when I say "inherently singular noun," that's what I mean. The noun inherently refers to only a singular thing. There is no singular/plural/whatever meaning that most nouns have. peng Suq mang. "The soldier obtains the torpedo." This *cannot* mean anything about multiple soldiers or multiple torpedoes. To say that, you'd need to either change or inflect the words to *add* the plurality, making it not inherent to the words. And when we say "inherently plural noun," we mean a noun that *inherently* refers to a collection of things, never to a singular thing. It just so happens that there's no further pluralizing to do with a noun like this, and there is no inflection for being singular, so we don't try to singularize words like {cha}. So {peng} is as much an inherently singular noun as {cha} is an inherently plural noun. The inherent meaning of {peng} is exclusively singular, just as the inherent meaning of {cha} is exclusively plural. For most nouns, there is no inherent singularity or plurality. -----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 6:13 AM Am 21.05.2026 um 17:56 schrieb SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol:
I don't see why we don't call these "inherently singular nouns."
Because that is a term that was not used in TKD. Section 3.3.2 says: "Finally, some nouns in Klingon are inherently or always plural in meaning, [...]" and then: "The singular counterparts of such words are utterly distinct:" and "The singular forms may take the {-mey} suffix, [...]" Going further (I might be wrong, I am not a linguist), the word "inherently plural" roughly means that a noun includes a plural meaning (in Klingon, not in English). Reversing this definition would mean that a "inherently singular noun" is ONLY singular. But TKD clearly says that those singular forms can take plural suffixes, and also "The plural suffixes are not necessary when a number is used." So, short: an inherent plural noun is ALWAYS plural. Its singular form CAN be singular but also plural. That's why it's not an "inherently singular noun".
-----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Steven Boozer via tlhIngan-Hol Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 11:46 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Cc: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: toyDal (noun)
Klingon word: toyDal Part of speech: noun Definition: tactic Source: qep'a' 28 [2021] _______________________________________________
This is the singular form of an inherently plural noun.