Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, May 22, 2021 Klingon word: puS Part of speech: verb Definition: be few, be several, be a handful Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org).
Whenever my wife hears someone say something like, “There are less people at this party than the last one,” she cringes and points out that one should say “fewer” instead of “less”. The proper use of “less” is something like “The left front tire on that car has less air in it than the right front tire.” Meanwhile, the Klingon gloss of {puS} covers “few”, but not “less”. Is its meaning limited to the gloss? In the {law’/puS} construction, we say things like {jIH tIn law’ SoH tIn puS} without implying that we are talking about more inches (in which direction?) or square inches of surface area, or cubic inches of volume, so that we could be talking about my “many” cubic inches and your “few” cubic inches. We commonly use it for “more” and “less” in the non-numeric comparison of quantity, lacking any integer value. I mean, am I really saying, “I have many bigs; you have few bigs,”? It feels more like, “I have much bigness; you have less bigness." Is there anywhere outside of the definition gloss where the definition includes the “less” meaning in addition to the stated “few” meaning? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 22, 2021, at 11:00 AM, Klingon Word of the Day <kwotd@wizage.net> wrote:
Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, May 22, 2021
Klingon word: puS Part of speech: verb Definition: be few, be several, be a handful Source: TKD
This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org).
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/22/2021 12:57 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Whenever my wife hears someone say something like, “There are less people at this party than the last one,” she cringes and points out that one should say “fewer” instead of “less”. The proper use of “less” is something like “The left front tire on that car has less air in it than the right front tire.”
Meanwhile, the Klingon gloss of {puS} covers “few”, but not “less”. Is its meaning limited to the gloss?
In the {law’/puS} construction, we say things like {jIH tIn law’ SoH tIn puS} without implying that we are talking about more inches (in which direction?) or square inches of surface area, or cubic inches of volume, so that we could be talking about my “many” cubic inches and your “few” cubic inches. We commonly use it for “more” and “less” in the non-numeric comparison of quantity, lacking any integer value.
It's the difference between countable and uncountable nouns. You use /fewer/ with countable nouns and /less/ with uncountable nouns. /Fewer people, fewer attacks, fewer ideas,/ but /less water, less time, less honor./
I mean, am I really saying, “I have many bigs; you have few bigs,”? It feels more like, “I have much bigness; you have less bigness."
Is there anywhere outside of the definition gloss where the definition includes the “less” meaning in addition to the stated “few” meaning?
I can't directly answer this question, but I can point out that *vItlh*/be high, be great (in quantity, size, intensity)/ is used for uncountable nouns, while *law'* /be many, be numerous/ is used for countable nouns. And *law'* is used in comparatives and superlatives even if they've got uncountable nouns, so I wouldn't go trying to analyze *puS* directly as used in those types of sentences. Maybe there's an uncountable counterpart to *puS* that we just haven't learned yet. Or maybe *puS* does both. We really can't tell, and I don't think it would be safe to rely too much on the English grammar of the gloss for the Klingon grammar. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thanks. So, until we hear otherwise, I guess {vItlhHa’} would have to do as an uncountable {puS}, unless someone has a better suggestion. I’d forgotten {vItlh} if I’d ever noticed it for what it apparently is. charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On May 22, 2021, at 1:24 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/22/2021 12:57 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Whenever my wife hears someone say something like, “There are less people at this party than the last one,” she cringes and points out that one should say “fewer” instead of “less”. The proper use of “less” is something like “The left front tire on that car has less air in it than the right front tire.”
Meanwhile, the Klingon gloss of {puS} covers “few”, but not “less”. Is its meaning limited to the gloss?
In the {law’/puS} construction, we say things like {jIH tIn law’ SoH tIn puS} without implying that we are talking about more inches (in which direction?) or square inches of surface area, or cubic inches of volume, so that we could be talking about my “many” cubic inches and your “few” cubic inches. We commonly use it for “more” and “less” in the non-numeric comparison of quantity, lacking any integer value. It's the difference between countable and uncountable nouns. You use fewer with countable nouns and less with uncountable nouns. Fewer people, fewer attacks, fewer ideas, but less water, less time, less honor.
I mean, am I really saying, “I have many bigs; you have few bigs,”? It feels more like, “I have much bigness; you have less bigness."
Is there anywhere outside of the definition gloss where the definition includes the “less” meaning in addition to the stated “few” meaning? I can't directly answer this question, but I can point out that vItlh be high, be great (in quantity, size, intensity) is used for uncountable nouns, while law' be many, be numerous is used for countable nouns. And law' is used in comparatives and superlatives even if they've got uncountable nouns, so I wouldn't go trying to analyze puS directly as used in those types of sentences.
Maybe there's an uncountable counterpart to puS that we just haven't learned yet. Or maybe puS does both. We really can't tell, and I don't think it would be safe to rely too much on the English grammar of the gloss for the Klingon grammar.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, May 22, 2021 Klingon word: puS Part of speech: verb Definition: be few, be several, be a handful _______________________________________________ pIpyuS pach DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS If you want to eat pipius claw, you'll have to break a few pipiuses. TKW qagh, ro'qegh'Iwchab, targh tIq Sop 'e' lungIl Humanpu' puS Few humans dare to eat gagh, rokeg blood pie, or heart of targ. S21 veymey puS neH chenmoHlu'pu' Limited Edition. ("Only a few copies have been made.") MKE GRAMMAR NOTES: (Seqram): Since {puS} implies by its meaning that the subject is plural, you don't need {-mey}. (TKD 21f): Unlike English, however, the lack of a specific suffix for plural does not always indicate that the noun is singular. In Klingon, a noun without a plural suffix may still refer to more than one entity. The plurality is indicated by a pronoun, whether a verb prefix or a full word, or by context. SEE ALSO: law' be many (v) 'Iq be too many, too much (v) yapbe' not be enough (v) 'op some, an unknown/unspecified quantity (n) HochHom most, greater part (n) I'll let others discuss the various law'/puS formulae. -- Voragh, Ca'Non Master of the Klingons Please contribute relevant vocabulary from the last year or two. I’ve fallen behind in updating my files and adding cross-references for related words.
Aren't "be few" and "be several" opposites? ~Melanie Roney Sent from my Palm Prē On Sat, May 22, 2021, 11:00 Klingon Word of the Day <kwotd@wizage.net> wrote:
Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, May 22, 2021
Klingon word: puS Part of speech: verb Definition: be few, be several, be a handful Source: TKD
This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org).
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Melanie Roney <nahqun@gmail.com>
Aren't "be few" and "be several" opposites?
I do not see them as opposites. To me they represent the same number, but viewed from different sides of the number. In other words, you would say something is "few" if you expected a lot, but there were only several. And you would say "several" if you didn't think there would be much at all, but it turns out that there are a few. janSIy
I think these English words are less vague than they are evasive of their accuracy. The term “a couple” is two. It doesn’t sound as precise as two, but it really is two. “several” is three or four. Two is already covered by "a couple", and and five is covered by “a handful”. “half a dozen” is six. So, I read {puS} as “3-5”. But it bothers me that it says “be few” instead of saying “be a few”. To me “be few” just feels very, very different. “I have a few apples” is just a statement about having three or four, or less commonly five apples. But “I have few apples” loads the statement with a disappointed expectation. One might expect me to have a bunch of apples, but nope. I don’t. I have few. If you expected me to say that I was out of apples, “I have a few apples” could reassure you that I’m not out yet, but “I have few apples” feels more like a warning that if you want one, you better act fast. It just emphasizes what it is NOT. It is NOT a LOT. “Being a few” doesn’t carry that subjective baggage, and the rest of the gloss feels more like “be a few” than it feels like “be few”. Of course, this is just my subjective opinion. In other words, does {puS} = {law’be’} or {law’Ha’}? charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On May 24, 2021, at 8:51 PM, Melanie Roney <nahqun@gmail.com> wrote:
Aren't "be few" and "be several" opposites?
~Melanie Roney Sent from my Palm Prē
On Sat, May 22, 2021, 11:00 Klingon Word of the Day <kwotd@wizage.net <mailto:kwotd@wizage.net>> wrote: Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, May 22, 2021
Klingon word: puS Part of speech: verb Definition: be few, be several, be a handful Source: TKD
This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org <mailto:qurgh@kli.org>).
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org> _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:27 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
But it bothers me that it says “be few” instead of saying “be a few”.
To me “be few” just feels very, very different.
“I have a few apples” is just a statement about having three or four, or less commonly five apples.
But “I have few apples” loads the statement with a disappointed expectation. One might expect me to have a bunch of apples, but nope. I don’t. I have few.
Try not to base your intuition about the words' implications on how they present themselves in English. They're not acting with the same grammar. "A few" is a quantity. "Few" is an adjective. In Klingon, the unspecified quantity is {'op}, and the verb expressing a quality is {puS}. To recalibrate your "feel" for the word, use it as a verb. "My apples are few." That might express disappointment, but it might just be a simple contrast with "my apples are many." Without context, I don't think it implies anything in particular.
In other words, does {puS} = {law’be’} or {law’Ha’}?
Since it's a word in its own right, I don't think it needs to *equal* anything, but I think it's closer to {law'Ha'} than to {law'be'}. -- ghunchu'wI'
Following your advice, I get “My apples are a handful,” which elicits the response, “No, ,y apples are a few. My granddaughters are a handful.” I say that for comic effect only. It’s not to diminish your point. Glosses work well sometimes and other glosses are somewhat messy. I honestly believe that {puS} is one of the messier ones. There isn’t a word in English that quite matches {puS}, so Okrand gives us several, each of which points vaguely toward what {puS} means and we have to figure it out from canon and from where our search for the best word in an expression leaves us with no obvious better choice than {puS}. Sent from my iPad
On May 24, 2021, at 11:50 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:27 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
But it bothers me that it says “be few” instead of saying “be a few”.
To me “be few” just feels very, very different.
“I have a few apples” is just a statement about having three or four, or less commonly five apples.
But “I have few apples” loads the statement with a disappointed expectation. One might expect me to have a bunch of apples, but nope. I don’t. I have few.
Try not to base your intuition about the words' implications on how they present themselves in English. They're not acting with the same grammar. "A few" is a quantity. "Few" is an adjective. In Klingon, the unspecified quantity is {'op}, and the verb expressing a quality is {puS}.
To recalibrate your "feel" for the word, use it as a verb. "My apples are few." That might express disappointment, but it might just be a simple contrast with "my apples are many." Without context, I don't think it implies anything in particular.
In other words, does {puS} = {law’be’} or {law’Ha’}?
Since it's a word in its own right, I don't think it needs to *equal* anything, but I think it's closer to {law'Ha'} than to {law'be'}.
-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/24/2021 11:27 PM, Will Martin wrote:
The term “a couple” is two. It doesn’t sound as precise as two, but it really is two.
/Couple/ means two, but if it turns out to be one or three, you weren't incorrect. /Pair/ and /brace/ (archaic) both mean exactly two.
“several” is three or four. Two is already covered by "a couple", and and five is covered by “a handful”.
In no way do I associate five with a /handful./ I've never heard anyone say that. To me, a /handful/ is even more vague than /several./
So, I read {puS} as “3-5”.
I read *puS* as/significantly smaller than average./ If I've got an army of a five thousand soldiers, and yours is only six hundred soldiers, your soldiers are *puS.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I was with you 100% until that last detail of your interpretation. I don’t get 5,000 out of “be few, be several, be a handful”, regardless of context. I quite honestly think you’ve gone to one extreme at least as far as I went to the other, and I doubt there’s anything like justification for that extreme interpretation in either canon or conversation with Okrand. That’s not claiming that I’m right and you are wrong. I’m merely stating that I am nothing like convinced that 5,000 of anything could be {puS} in anything but a comparative grammatical construction. Outside of that very fossilized construction, it quite sincerely does not feel like the right word. charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On May 25, 2021, at 7:02 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/24/2021 11:27 PM, Will Martin wrote:
The term “a couple” is two. It doesn’t sound as precise as two, but it really is two. Couple means two, but if it turns out to be one or three, you weren't incorrect. Pair and brace (archaic) both mean exactly two.
“several” is three or four. Two is already covered by "a couple", and and five is covered by “a handful”. In no way do I associate five with a handful. I've never heard anyone say that. To me, a handful is even more vague than several.
So, I read {puS} as “3-5”. I read puS as significantly smaller than average. If I've got an army of a five thousand soldiers, and yours is only six hundred soldiers, your soldiers are puS.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/25/2021 9:59 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I was with you 100% until that last detail of your interpretation. I don’t get 5,000 out of “be few, be several, be a handful”, regardless of context. I quite honestly think you’ve gone to one extreme at least as far as I went to the other, and I doubt there’s anything like justification for that extreme interpretation in either canon or conversation with Okrand.
That’s not claiming that I’m right and you are wrong. I’m merely stating that I am nothing like convinced that 5,000 of anything could be {puS} in anything but a comparative grammatical construction. Outside of that very fossilized construction, it quite sincerely does not feel like the right word.
You have misread my message. I said I have 5,000 soldiers, you have 600 soldiers, and your 600 soldiers are *puS.* Yes, your 600 are few only in comparison to my 5,000, but that's my point: the word doesn't only mean three to five. On the other hand, if I have 600 soldiers assigned to guard a single prisoner, there is no way you can call them *puS.* It's relative and context-dependent. *puS,* like /few,/ is one of those words that only has a definite meaning in context. Another is *law'.* How many soldiers are *law'?* That depends on what you need them for and what they're up against. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 5/25/2021 10:12 AM, SuStel wrote:
On 5/25/2021 9:59 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I was with you 100% until that last detail of your interpretation. I don’t get 5,000 out of “be few, be several, be a handful”, regardless of context. I quite honestly think you’ve gone to one extreme at least as far as I went to the other, and I doubt there’s anything like justification for that extreme interpretation in either canon or conversation with Okrand.
That’s not claiming that I’m right and you are wrong. I’m merely stating that I am nothing like convinced that 5,000 of anything could be {puS} in anything but a comparative grammatical construction. Outside of that very fossilized construction, it quite sincerely does not feel like the right word.
You have misread my message. I said I have 5,000 soldiers, you have 600 soldiers, and your 600 soldiers are *puS.* Yes, your 600 are few only in comparison to my 5,000, but that's my point: the word doesn't only mean three to five.
On the other hand, if I have 600 soldiers assigned to guard a single prisoner, there is no way you can call them *puS.* It's relative and context-dependent.
*puS,* like /few,/ is one of those words that only has a definite meaning in context. Another is *law'.* How many soldiers are *law'?* That depends on what you need them for and what they're up against.
Here, by the way, are the canonical, non-comparative uses of *puS* that I'm aware of: *pIpyuS pach DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS. */If you want to eat pipius claw, you'll have to break a few pipiuses./ (TKW) *qagh, ro'qegh'Iwchab, targh tIq Sop 'e' lungIl Humanpu' puS. */Few humans dare to eat gagh, rokeg blood pie, or heart of targ./ (Skybox S21) *veymey puS neH chenmoHlu'pu' */Limited Edition/ (Klingon Monopoly) The first of these is very vague. You could break three to five pipiuses to eat pipius claw, but then again, you could break two or six. The *puS* is there to tell us that you probably won't want to break just one. The second one doesn't mean that only three to five humans have dared to eat these things. It means humans who dare to eat these things are rare. Compared to the total number of humans, the number of those who dare to eat these things is relatively small. In the third case, I'm pretty sure they made more than three to five copies of the limited edition Klingon Monopoly. The *puS* is telling us that, compared to a normal print run, there are only a small number of copies of this edition. That's what *puS* means. It means more than one, but significantly less than an average amount, whatever "average" means in the given context. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thanks. You have convinced me. It is interesting that Okrand seems to make no difference in his English translations between “few” and “a few”, though his gloss uses “a handful”, but not “a few”. But just because it’s interesting, that doesn’t mean one should get all that worked up about the difference between “few” and “a few”. I accept that it’s just a quirk in the gloss and not some kind of intended significance. charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On May 25, 2021, at 10:30 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/25/2021 10:12 AM, SuStel wrote:
On 5/25/2021 9:59 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I was with you 100% until that last detail of your interpretation. I don’t get 5,000 out of “be few, be several, be a handful”, regardless of context. I quite honestly think you’ve gone to one extreme at least as far as I went to the other, and I doubt there’s anything like justification for that extreme interpretation in either canon or conversation with Okrand.
That’s not claiming that I’m right and you are wrong. I’m merely stating that I am nothing like convinced that 5,000 of anything could be {puS} in anything but a comparative grammatical construction. Outside of that very fossilized construction, it quite sincerely does not feel like the right word. You have misread my message. I said I have 5,000 soldiers, you have 600 soldiers, and your 600 soldiers are puS. Yes, your 600 are few only in comparison to my 5,000, but that's my point: the word doesn't only mean three to five.
On the other hand, if I have 600 soldiers assigned to guard a single prisoner, there is no way you can call them puS. It's relative and context-dependent.
puS, like few, is one of those words that only has a definite meaning in context. Another is law'. How many soldiers are law'? That depends on what you need them for and what they're up against.
Here, by the way, are the canonical, non-comparative uses of puS that I'm aware of:
pIpyuS pach DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS. If you want to eat pipius claw, you'll have to break a few pipiuses. (TKW)
qagh, ro'qegh'Iwchab, targh tIq Sop 'e' lungIl Humanpu' puS. Few humans dare to eat gagh, rokeg blood pie, or heart of targ. (Skybox S21)
veymey puS neH chenmoHlu'pu' Limited Edition (Klingon Monopoly)
The first of these is very vague. You could break three to five pipiuses to eat pipius claw, but then again, you could break two or six. The puS is there to tell us that you probably won't want to break just one.
The second one doesn't mean that only three to five humans have dared to eat these things. It means humans who dare to eat these things are rare. Compared to the total number of humans, the number of those who dare to eat these things is relatively small.
In the third case, I'm pretty sure they made more than three to five copies of the limited edition Klingon Monopoly. The puS is telling us that, compared to a normal print run, there are only a small number of copies of this edition.
That's what puS means. It means more than one, but significantly less than an average amount, whatever "average" means in the given context.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 8:52 PM Melanie Roney <nahqun@gmail.com> wrote:
Aren't "be few" and "be several" opposites?
In Klingon, {law'} "be many" and {puS} "be few" clearly act as opposites in at least one way: they are the prototypical contrasting verbs in the comparative/superlative construction. -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
janSIy . -
Klingon Word of the Day -
Melanie Roney -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin