As I understand it, irregular plurals like {cha}, {ngop}, {negh}, and {no'} are treated as grammatically singular. But does that extend to pronouns? The following sentences don’t bother me that much: {ngop wISay'moH} {Dulegh'a' negh?} {no' luqaw} {cha yIghuS!} But these seem downright weird: {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} {'Iv ghaH no'ra''e'?} {cha 'oH'a'?} {negh ghaHlaw'.} Do we have canonical evidence of pronouns used to stand in for irregular plural nouns?
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 04:37, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
As I understand it, irregular plurals like {cha}, {ngop}, {negh}, and {no'} are treated as grammatically singular. But does that extend to pronouns?
The following sentences don’t bother me that much:
{ngop wISay'moH} {Dulegh'a' negh?} {no' luqaw} {cha yIghuS!}
But these seem downright weird:
{nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} {'Iv ghaH no'ra''e'?} {cha 'oH'a'?} {negh ghaHlaw'.}
Do we have canonical evidence of pronouns used to stand in for irregular plural nouns?
{nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'} is given as an example in KGT on p.33 where the grammar of inherently plural nouns is explained. Those sentences are grammatically correct. -- De'vID
On Aug 26, 2019, at 21:53, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
these seem downright weird:
{nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} {'Iv ghaH no'ra''e'?} {cha 'oH'a'?} {negh ghaHlaw'.}
Do we have canonical evidence of pronouns used to stand in for irregular plural nouns?
{nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'} is given as an example in KGT on p.33 where the grammar of inherently plural nouns is explained. Those sentences are grammatically correct.
Sigh. Once again I ask a question that’s answered in KGT, and amusingly this time I even made up an example that is identical to a canonical example that answers my question. I clearly need to repeatedly read KGT until I don’t ask questions like that any more. Maybe I’ll sleep with it under my pillow tonight. For some reason, the examples with {ghaH} strike me as even weirder than the ones with {'oH}. But if we do use {'oH} for {ngop}, I can’t justify using {chaH} for {no'}.
(TKD 3.3.2): Inherently plural nouns are treated grammatically as singular nouns in that singular pronouns are used to refer to them (sections 4.1, 5.1). For example, in the sentence {cha yIghuS} “Stand by torpedoes!” or “Get the torpedoes ready to be fired!” the verb prefix {yI-}, an imperative prefix used for singular objects, must be used even though the object ({cha} “torpedoes”) has a plural meaning. (KGT 33-34): Inherently plural nouns are considered singular as far as how they fit into the overall grammatical structure. Thus, the singular pronoun {'oH} (it) is used for both {jengva'} (plate) and {ngop} (plates) in sentences such as {nuqDaq 'oH jengva''e'?} (“Where is the plate?”) and {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} (“Where are the plates?”). Children, however, tend to use the plural pronoun {bIH} (they) with {ngop} (as well as with {jengva'mey} and the redundantly suffixed {ngopmey}): {nuqDaq bIH ngop'e'?} (“Where are the plates?”). (KGT 178): {Hochlogh no' yIquvmoH} ("All times honor your ancestors"; {no'}, "ancestors"; {yIquvmoH}, “Honor them!” [actually, this is “Honor him/her!”; the inherently plural noun {no'}, “ancestors”, takes a singular pronoun] ); compare {reH no' yIquvmoH} ("Always honor your ancestors"). -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons _________________________________________________________________________ FROM: Hugh Son puqloD On Aug 26, 2019, at 21:53, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com<mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote: these seem downright weird: {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} {'Iv ghaH no'ra''e'?} {cha 'oH'a'?} {negh ghaHlaw'.} Do we have canonical evidence of pronouns used to stand in for irregular plural nouns? {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'} is given as an example in KGT on p.33 where the grammar of inherently plural nouns is explained. Those sentences are grammatically correct. Sigh. Once again I ask a question that’s answered in KGT, and amusingly this time I even made up an example that is identical to a canonical example that answers my question. I clearly need to repeatedly read KGT until I don’t ask questions like that any more. Maybe I’ll sleep with it under my pillow tonight. For some reason, the examples with {ghaH} strike me as even weirder than the ones with {'oH}. But if we do use {'oH} for {ngop}, I can’t justify using {chaH} for {no'}.
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 05:03, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
On Aug 26, 2019, at 21:53, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
these seem downright weird:
{nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} {'Iv ghaH no'ra''e'?} {cha 'oH'a'?} {negh ghaHlaw'.}
Do we have canonical evidence of pronouns used to stand in for irregular plural nouns?
{nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'} is given as an example in KGT on p.33 where the grammar of inherently plural nouns is explained. Those sentences are grammatically correct.
Sigh. Once again I ask a question that’s answered in KGT, and amusingly this time I even made up an example that is identical to a canonical example that answers my question.
I clearly need to repeatedly read KGT until I don’t ask questions like that any more. Maybe I’ll sleep with it under my pillow tonight.
For some reason, the examples with {ghaH} strike me as even weirder than the ones with {'oH}. But if we do use {'oH} for {ngop}, I can’t justify using {chaH} for {no'}.
I'm working with Dr. Okrand on a 2nd edition of the paq'batlh and can confirm that the correct pronoun for {negh} is {ghaH}. (Incorrect uses of {chaH} and verb prefixes which incorrectly treated {negh} as grammatically plural will be corrected in the 2nd ed.) -- De'vID
participants (3)
-
De'vID -
Hugh Son puqloD -
Steven Boozer