The {'op} is defined as "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity", and in the Ca'Non example of Skybox 7 it is used as {'op SuvwI'} i.e in front of a countable noun which doesn't have the plural suffix. The relevant part of that sentence is: {DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS} Suppose we say {'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS}. Then this could mean either "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of an orange", or "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges". Perhaps one could argue that based on the Ca'Non example of the Skybox 7, "the 'op before a singular noun is to be interpreted as referring to a plural number of that noun". But I don't know if one could argue that, since in this Ca'Non example, interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being singular is impossible. Because, if interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being singular was possible, then that would mean that "the klingon vessel pagh has some/an unspecified quantity of a warrior", i.e. on the pagh happen to serve some of the most skilled legs/arms/DaynguHDu'/whatever of a warrior in the klingon fleet. Of course in star trek everything is possible, on the other hand though, I think that one could come to the following conclusion with regards to the {'op}: Placing the {'op} before a countable noun which has no plural suffix, could mean either "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of that noun (singular)" or "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of a number of that noun". While placing the {'op} before an uncountable noun can only mean ""some/an unspecified quantity of that noun (singular)". Of course, I don't know for sure if this conclusion would be correct.. But now let's get back to the fox.. If I write {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, then this obviously means ""the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges". But my problem is that this is ambiguous in the following way: Did the fox walk in the house, find an unspecified quantity of oranges and ate them all ? Or did the fox walk into the house, found 40 oranges and ate some of them ? And if the fox indeed ate only some of the oranges, then why not write {na'ranmey 'op Soppu' qeSHoS} ? After all, we *can* write {pItSa' HochHom Soppu' vIghro' tIQ} for "the ancient cat ate almost all of the pizza". ~ Qa'yIn
(This is a continuation of a thread I'd started on July 16 2020: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-July/015310.html) On the other hand, perhaps the {'op} is the number equivalent of {-lu'}. Meaning that as the {-lu'} talks about an indefinite subject, in a similar manner the {'op} talks about an unknown/unspecified number/quantity of crap. The definition of {'op} is given as "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity", and this reminds me of the unspecified flavor of {-lu'}. If all this is correct, and the {'op} is indeed the number equivalent of {-lu'}, then it can't be placed after a noun. Because if it works like numbers, then placing it after the noun would be like writing {tlhInganpu' jav} and expecting it to be understood as "six of the klingons", which isn't possible to do since according to Ca'Non {tlhInganpu' jav} would mean "klingons number six". Let alone that if {'op} is indeed the number equivalent of {-lu'}, then what would {tlhInganpu' 'op} mean? For some reason this reminds me of the {-lu'wI'} which although grammatically correct, it actually makes no sense. Of course the counter-argument could be that "even if {'op} is indeed the number equivalent of {-lu'}, then why would you find its' placement after the noun strange, while you don't find anything strange with it being placed before it?". But the answer would be simple: "Because we have Ca'Non where the {'op} is placed before the noun". Anyways, I just wanted to add these thoughts to this thread. So I'll shut up now. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
I think you making an observation and presuming an underlying rule that doesn’t exist. While you may see a similarity between {‘op} and {-lu’}, there may well be absolutely nothing connecting them in the way you suggest. We can as easily say that {‘op} is like {Hoch}, and since {Hoch} can be used after a noun, likely {‘op} can be, too. Meanwhile, neither presumption has apparently been confirmed by canon. charghwI’, retired.
On Mar 25, 2022, at 6:56 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
(This is a continuation of a thread I'd started on July 16 2020: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-July/015310.html)
On the other hand, perhaps the {'op} is the number equivalent of {-lu'}.
Meaning that as the {-lu'} talks about an indefinite subject, in a similar manner the {'op} talks about an unknown/unspecified number/quantity of crap.
The definition of {'op} is given as "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity", and this reminds me of the unspecified flavor of {-lu'}.
If all this is correct, and the {'op} is indeed the number equivalent of {-lu'}, then it can't be placed after a noun.
Because if it works like numbers, then placing it after the noun would be like writing {tlhInganpu' jav} and expecting it to be understood as "six of the klingons", which isn't possible to do since according to Ca'Non {tlhInganpu' jav} would mean "klingons number six".
Let alone that if {'op} is indeed the number equivalent of {-lu'}, then what would {tlhInganpu' 'op} mean? For some reason this reminds me of the {-lu'wI'} which although grammatically correct, it actually makes no sense.
Of course the counter-argument could be that "even if {'op} is indeed the number equivalent of {-lu'}, then why would you find its' placement after the noun strange, while you don't find anything strange with it being placed before it?".
But the answer would be simple: "Because we have Ca'Non where the {'op} is placed before the noun".
Anyways, I just wanted to add these thoughts to this thread. So I'll shut up now.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 14:38, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The {'op} is defined as "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity", and in the Ca'Non example of Skybox 7 it is used as {'op SuvwI'} i.e in front of a countable noun which doesn't have the plural suffix. The relevant part of that sentence is:
{DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS}
Suppose we say {'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS}. Then this could mean either "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of an orange", or "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges".
Perhaps one could argue that based on the Ca'Non example of the Skybox 7, "the 'op before a singular noun is to be interpreted as referring to a plural number of that noun". But I don't know if one could argue that, since in this Ca'Non example, interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being singular is impossible. Because, if interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being singular was possible, then that would mean that "the klingon vessel pagh has some/an unspecified quantity of a warrior", i.e. on the pagh happen to serve some of the most skilled legs/arms/DaynguHDu'/whatever of a warrior in the klingon fleet.
I think that {'op} works like {Hoch} and {pagh}. One piece of evidence pointing to this is that we have {HochDIch}, {Hochlogh}, {paghDIch}, {paghlogh}, {'opDIch}, and {'oplogh} (the last two having been revealed recently for Alice in Wonderland). If that's the case, then {'op} followed by an explicitly plural noun means "some of the X's, taken collectively", and {'op} followed by a noun which isn't explicitly plural means "some X's, considered individually". I think if you want to express some part of something, the {'op} follows the noun. {'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the oranges, considered individually" {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the oranges, considered collectively" {na'ran 'op Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the orange" Of course in star trek everything is possible, on the other hand
though, I think that one could come to the following conclusion with regards to the {'op}:
Placing the {'op} before a countable noun which has no plural suffix, could mean either "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of that noun (singular)" or "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of a number of that noun". While placing the {'op} before an uncountable noun can only mean ""some/an unspecified quantity of that noun (singular)".
Of course, I don't know for sure if this conclusion would be correct..
But now let's get back to the fox..
If I write {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, then this obviously means ""the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges". But my problem is that this is ambiguous in the following way:
Did the fox walk in the house, find an unspecified quantity of oranges and ate them all ? Or did the fox walk into the house, found 40 oranges and ate some of them ?
And if the fox indeed ate only some of the oranges, then why not write {na'ranmey 'op Soppu' qeSHoS} ? After all, we *can* write {pItSa' HochHom Soppu' vIghro' tIQ} for "the ancient cat ate almost all of the pizza".
Those aren't analogous. The analogous thing would be {pItSa'mey HochHom} (with an explicitly plural noun), which would probably mean "most of the pizzas". -- De'vID
De'vID:
{'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the oranges, considered individually" {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the oranges, considered collectively"
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. But there's something I can't understand; what is the difference between "considered individually" and "considered collectively"? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 13:41, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the oranges, considered individually" {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS} "the fox ate some of the oranges, considered collectively"
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. But there's something I can't understand; what is the difference between "considered individually" and "considered collectively"?
I don't think there's very much difference in this particular example: {'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS} You might say this if, for example, out of 50 oranges, the fox ate 10, but left 40 intact. Considered individually, the fox ate some of the oranges. {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS} You might say this if, for example, out of a bunch of oranges, the fox ate a few completely, and ate some others partially. Considered collectively, the fox ate some of the oranges. There are some situations where the difference might be much more clear. Consider this canon example with {Hoch}: {targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS} "Your targ has a bigger brain than all your ancestors put together!" (That is, your targ's brain is bigger than all your ancestors' brains considered collectively. If your targ has an average brain, each of your ancestor's brains must be tiny because their combined size is still smaller than a targ's.) Compare this with: {targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yab tIn puS} "Your targ has a bigger brain than each of your ancestors!" (That is, your targ's brain is bigger than all your ancestors' brains considered individually. If your targ has an average brain, each of your ancestor's brains might be just a bit smaller than a targ's, but their combined size might be much bigger than a single targ's.) Now, let's consider the original example you brought up, assuming {'op} works like {Hoch}: {'op SuvwI' po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS} "Some of the warriors, taken individually, are more skilled than many warriors in the Klingon fleet". (Out of the warriors I'm talking about, there are some individuals who are more skilled than many warriors in the Klingon fleet, on a one-to-one comparison basis.) Compare this with: {'op SuvwI'pu' po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI'(pu') law' po' puS} "Some of the warriors, taken collectively, are more skilled than many warriors in the Klingon fleet". (Out of the warriors I'm talking about, if you consider some of them collectively as a group, they are more skilled than many warriors in the Klingon fleet put together.) In the first case, I expect that there are individuals among the warriors who can win in one-on-one combat against many Klingons in the fleet. In the second case, perhaps the warriors are some kind of elite force, and as a team they can defeat an army many times their size. I have no direct evidence that {'op} works this way. I'm extrapolating from the way {Hoch} works and the similarity between {Hoch} and {'op}. It might be that {'op} doesn't work this way, but I do think it does, and it's consistent with the only known example of its usage in canon. -- De'vID
participants (3)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Will Martin