inherently plural nouns when they are implied
Suppose I'm telling the following story. There's a captain whose crew is incompetent. They have the targets in the screens in front of them, but they still can't see them. So the captain says: "Idiots.. They can't see the targets, even when the screens display them.." Which of the two should I write? QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH. QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey. So I guess the question is this: When at a point of a passage an inherently plural noun has been stated, but in the subsequent story this noun is omitted (elided I think is the term), do we treat the thing described as singular or do we treat it as plural? Is the inherently plural noun treated as singular only when it is written, or are the things described by that noun to be considered as something singular for the duration of the remaining story, even when the inherently plural noun which describes them is omitted/elided? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 6/1/2022 8:38 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose I'm telling the following story.
There's a captain whose crew is incompetent. They have the targets in the screens in front of them, but they still can't see them. So the captain says:
"Idiots.. They can't see the targets, even when the screens display them.."
Which of the two should I write?
QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH.
QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey.
So I guess the question is this:
When at a point of a passage an inherently plural noun has been stated, but in the subsequent story this noun is omitted (elided I think is the term), do we treat the thing described as singular or do we treat it as plural?
Is the inherently plural noun treated as singular only when it is written, or are the things described by that noun to be considered as something singular for the duration of the remaining story, even when the inherently plural noun which describes them is omitted/elided?
*ray'* is an *'oH, *not a *bIH.* You can substitute pronouns for nouns, and you can elide pronouns. So when you say *ray' luleghlaHbe'; vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH,* the elided word between *vabDot* and *lu'aghtaHvIS* is *'oH.* There is no point at which you stop thinking of the entity as singular. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 14:39, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose I'm telling the following story.
There's a captain whose crew is incompetent. They have the targets in the screens in front of them, but they still can't see them. So the captain says:
"Idiots.. They can't see the targets, even when the screens display them.."
Which of the two should I write?
QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH.
QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey.
Why did you write {jIH} in the first sentence and {jIHmey} in the second? In any case, if {ray'} is the elided object pf {'agh} and the subject is plural, then it should be {lu'aghtaHvIS} (using the they-it prefix). I sent a message to the mailing list with the subject "inherently plural nouns and collection nouns for groups of people (in the paq'batlh)" quoting a part of an exchange between Dr. Okrand and myself about this: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-February/019433.htm... So I guess the question is this:
When at a point of a passage an inherently plural noun has been stated, but in the subsequent story this noun is omitted (elided I think is the term), do we treat the thing described as singular or do we treat it as plural?
Is the inherently plural noun treated as singular only when it is written, or are the things described by that noun to be considered as something singular for the duration of the remaining story, even when the inherently plural noun which describes them is omitted/elided?
Quoting the relevant portion of the message I cited above, the 1st edition of the paq'batlh had this sentence: {'uQ'a' luSop neghwI' 'e' vIchaw' / chaHvaD 'Iw HIq vInob / vaj tlhutlhlaH 'e' luSIQlaHbe'} "I will let my soldiers feast, / Give them blood wine / Until they can stand no more!" Dr. Okrand noted that {negh} should be treated grammatically as singular throughout, so the above is in error. Correcting just this error would result in: {'uQ'a' Sop neghwI' 'e' vIchaw' / ghaHvaD 'Iw HIq vInob / vaj tlhutlhlaH e' SIQlaHbe'} Note that {SIQlaHbe'} is correct (and not {luSIQlaHbe'}), even though the subject is not explicit, because {negh} is grammatically singular. Note also that that isn't the final revision of the sentence as it will appear in the 2nd edition, as it has been further revised (but the further revisions are not relevant to your question). -- De'vID
In Swedish there are grammatical genders called common and neuter gender. The neuter gender is the "default" gender that is used when the gender of the word is not known, and after the word is introduced, people switch to the correct gender. For example: Vad är det? – Den är en hund. (What is it? It's a dog) Notice how the first speaker says det while the second speaker says den, as hund is a common gender word. I think something similar would happen in Klingon, so I imagine this conversation: 'Iv chaH? – negh ghaH. In situations like this, I expect that there can be some variance between speakers. Maybe some repeat chaH as the asker used it. Maybe some first start using chaH and then switch when they realize that they must use ghaH. Maybe some switch back when they want to use another word with a normal plural. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 1st, 2022 at 16.29, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 14:39, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose I'm telling the following story.
There's a captain whose crew is incompetent. They have the targets in the screens in front of them, but they still can't see them. So the captain says:
"Idiots.. They can't see the targets, even when the screens display them.."
Which of the two should I write?
QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH.
QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey.
Why did you write {jIH} in the first sentence and {jIHmey} in the second? In any case, if {ray'} is the elided object pf {'agh} and the subject is plural, then it should be {lu'aghtaHvIS} (using the they-it prefix).
I sent a message to the mailing list with the subject "inherently plural nouns and collection nouns for groups of people (in the paq'batlh)" quoting a part of an exchange between Dr. Okrand and myself about this: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-February/019433.htm...
So I guess the question is this:
When at a point of a passage an inherently plural noun has been stated, but in the subsequent story this noun is omitted (elided I think is the term), do we treat the thing described as singular or do we treat it as plural?
Is the inherently plural noun treated as singular only when it is written, or are the things described by that noun to be considered as something singular for the duration of the remaining story, even when the inherently plural noun which describes them is omitted/elided?
Quoting the relevant portion of the message I cited above, the 1st edition of the paq'batlh had this sentence:
{'uQ'a' luSop neghwI' 'e' vIchaw' / chaHvaD 'Iw HIq vInob / vaj tlhutlhlaH 'e' luSIQlaHbe'} "I will let my soldiers feast, / Give them blood wine / Until they can stand no more!"
Dr. Okrand noted that {negh} should be treated grammatically as singular throughout, so the above is in error. Correcting just this error would result in: {'uQ'a' Sop neghwI' 'e' vIchaw' / ghaHvaD 'Iw HIq vInob / vaj tlhutlhlaH e' SIQlaHbe'}
Note that {SIQlaHbe'} is correct (and not {luSIQlaHbe'}), even though the subject is not explicit, because {negh} is grammatically singular. Note also that that isn't the final revision of the sentence as it will appear in the 2nd edition, as it has been further revised (but the further revisions are not relevant to your question).
--
De'vID
SuStel:
You can substitute pronouns for nouns, and you can elide pronouns
I wasn't aware of that. I thought that the thing elided was decided by context. So, just to see if I understand this correctly: nIHIvpu' Ha'DIbaH; DaqaDpu'mo', nIHIvpu'. the animals attacked you; because you provoked them they attacked you. If I understand correctly, the elided subject of {nIHIvpu'} is they/chaH, and *not* {Ha'DIbaHmey}, right? jIH:
QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH. QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey. De'vID: Why did you write {jIH} in the first sentence and {jIHmey} in the second?
I think I wrote it this way out of habit. I usually omit the plural suffixes when there's the prefix {lu-}, and I usually place them whenever the {lu-} is missing. De'vID:
I sent a message to the mailing list with the subject "inherently plural nouns and collection nouns for groups of people (in the paq'batlh)"
I've totally forgotten about that message! I checked, and indeed I had it in my archive, but I'd totally forgotten it. Anyway, I (re)read it, so things became clearer. Thanks. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 6/1/2022 10:55 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
You can substitute pronouns for nouns, and you can elide pronouns
I wasn't aware of that. I thought that the thing elided was decided by context. So, just to see if I understand this correctly:
nIHIvpu' Ha'DIbaH; DaqaDpu'mo', nIHIvpu'. the animals attacked you; because you provoked them they attacked you.
If I understand correctly, the elided subject of {nIHIvpu'} is they/chaH, and *not* {Ha'DIbaHmey}, right?
Technically, yes, but practically, since you can replace any noun with a pronoun and then elide the pronoun, it's the same as eliding the noun. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 16:55, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
You can substitute pronouns for nouns, and you can elide pronouns
I wasn't aware of that. I thought that the thing elided was decided by context. So, just to see if I understand this correctly:
nIHIvpu' Ha'DIbaH; DaqaDpu'mo', nIHIvpu'. the animals attacked you; because you provoked them they attacked you.
If I understand correctly, the elided subject of {nIHIvpu'} is they/chaH, and *not* {Ha'DIbaHmey}, right?
Unless these animals are beings who can use language, the elided pronoun is {bIH}. See TKD section 6.2.1 on compound sentences. Even though that section is talking about two sentences joined with a conjunction, it's equally applicable to multiple sentences. <When the subject of both of the joined sentences is the same, the English translation may be reduced to a less choppy form, but Klingon does not allow this shortening. The pronominal prefix must be used with both verbs. [...] When a noun (as opposed to simply a verbal prefix) indicates subject and/or object, there are some options in Klingon. In its fullest form, a Klingon sentence repeats the noun [...] It is possible, however, to use pronouns rather than nouns in the second of the joined sentences. [...] If the context is clear, even the pronoun may be left out.> So "by the book", you're first replacing the noun with a pronoun, and then eliding the pronoun. But it's splitting hairs to insist that this isn't the same as just eliding the noun. -- De'vID
Agreed. The noun implies the specific entity that is subject or object. The pronoun strips away everything except the person, number, and yes/no status as a being capable of language. The prefix reduces that information to just the person and number, and in some cases is ambiguous even concerning that limited information. There is no information in the grammatical link between the noun and prefix that is lacking from the pronoun, so there is no way to tell if the elided word implied by the prefix was a noun or a pronoun. It’s completely irrelevant. The same rule for choosing the correct prefix to represent the noun applies to choosing the correct pronoun to represent the noun, though the set of pronouns available is larger than the set of prefixes since the pronouns have to represent the additional information of the yes/no status of ability to use language. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 1, 2022, at 12:46 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 16:55, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: SuStel:
You can substitute pronouns for nouns, and you can elide pronouns
I wasn't aware of that. I thought that the thing elided was decided by context. So, just to see if I understand this correctly:
nIHIvpu' Ha'DIbaH; DaqaDpu'mo', nIHIvpu'. the animals attacked you; because you provoked them they attacked you.
If I understand correctly, the elided subject of {nIHIvpu'} is they/chaH, and *not* {Ha'DIbaHmey}, right?
Unless these animals are beings who can use language, the elided pronoun is {bIH}.
See TKD section 6.2.1 on compound sentences. Even though that section is talking about two sentences joined with a conjunction, it's equally applicable to multiple sentences. <When the subject of both of the joined sentences is the same, the English translation may be reduced to a less choppy form, but Klingon does not allow this shortening. The pronominal prefix must be used with both verbs. [...] When a noun (as opposed to simply a verbal prefix) indicates subject and/or object, there are some options in Klingon. In its fullest form, a Klingon sentence repeats the noun [...] It is possible, however, to use pronouns rather than nouns in the second of the joined sentences. [...] If the context is clear, even the pronoun may be left out.>
So "by the book", you're first replacing the noun with a pronoun, and then eliding the pronoun. But it's splitting hairs to insist that this isn't the same as just eliding the noun.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
D qunen'oS -
De'vID -
Iikka Hauhio -
SuStel -
Will Martin