The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists. qunnoq
On 8/16/2017 10:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists.
maSovbe'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
-----Original Message----- From: SuStel On 8/16/2017 10:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists.
maSovbe'. _______________________________________________ "Hosiery" may have been a better translation. See, for example, The Big Bang Theory, "The Lunar Excitation": SHELDON: ... I am being blackmailed with a hidden dirty sock. AMY: If that was slang, I'm unfamiliar with it. If it was literal, I share your aversion to soiled hosiery. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists.
qunnoq
We have no idea, because {paSlogh} has not been used outside of that particular dictionary entry. The canon isn't very clear. Many of the other intentionally inherently plural nouns in TKD also have singular forms provided, whereas {paSlogh} doesn't. Does that mean it wasn't intended as an inherently plural noun? On the other hand, {Quv} is an inherently plural noun, but no singular version "coordinate" is provided. But, on the gripping hand, {Quv} is from the TKD appendix, which is shorter and less elaborated on than the entries in TKD. So who can say? Well, I know one guy who can, but Maltz doesn't post on the mailing list. Maybe it's similar to {qurgh}, which is translated as "bean, beans", and can refer to a single bean or presumably a collective group of beans taken as a whole (like how a bunch of rice grains are just "rice"). Or maybe it's not like that at all. We don't know. In weird canon corner-cases like this, where's no clear answer, I feel like the best you can do is to take a shot based on what else you know and explain your reasoning if someone has an issue with it. Either someone with better reasoning or more knowledge of canon will come along and provide some clarification, or they'll just have to say "That doesn't sound right, but I don't know enough about {paSlogh} to dispute it."
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 at 16:26, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists.
I relayed your question to Dr. Okrand, who asked Maltz about it. I just got his reply: {paSlogh} works like {ngop}. --- begin quote --- {paSlogh} is an inherently plural noun, grammatically singular. {tu'mI'} the word for one sock. The usual way to say "pair of socks" is {paSlogh chang'eng}; {tu'mI' chang'eng} is odd, but if you said it, you'd be understood. --- end quote --- -- De'vID
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 12:38, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 at 16:26, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists.
I relayed your question to Dr. Okrand, who asked Maltz about it. I just got his reply: {paSlogh} works like {ngop}.
--- begin quote --- {paSlogh} is an inherently plural noun, grammatically singular. {tu'mI'} the word for one sock. The usual way to say "pair of socks" is {paSlogh chang'eng}; {tu'mI' chang'eng} is odd, but if you said it, you'd be understood. --- end quote ---
He also revealed a verb to use with it. {mey} v. match, fit onto, interlock with, interlace with, mesh with --- begin quote --- {qoch} is not the word for "partner" when referring to socks and gloves and the like. The word for that is {nelwI'}. With {nel}, the subject is one sock (or glove or shoe or whatever) of the pair and the object is the other. To talk about a sock (or glove or….) matching (that is fitting onto) a foot (or hand or…), use the verb {mey}: {mumey waqmeywIj} "my shoes fit" (literally, "my shoes fit me") {torgh lumey waqmey} "the shoes fit Torg" {waqmeywIj vImey} "I fit my shoes" --- end quote --- More clarification about the difference between {mey} and {nel}: --- begin quote --- When a piece of a jigsaw puzzle fits into the right spot, you can say: {Qay'mol mey (Qay'mol) teSra'} "the (puzzle) piece fits (into) the puzzle" (In this context, you don't have to repeat {Qay'mol}, but it's fine if you do.) or {nelchu' Qay'mol teSra'} "the puzzle piece fits perfectly" The first focuses on the interlocking of the pieces; the second focuses on the piece in question occupying the identically shaped space where it goes. --- end quote --- -- De'vID
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 12:50, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
He also revealed a verb to use with it.
{mey} v. match, fit onto, interlock with, interlace with, mesh with
--- begin quote --- {qoch} is not the word for "partner" when referring to socks and gloves and the like. The word for that is {nelwI'}. With {nel}, the subject is one sock (or glove or shoe or whatever) of the pair and the object is the other. To talk about a sock (or glove or….) matching (that is fitting onto) a foot (or hand or…), use the verb {mey}:
{mumey waqmeywIj} "my shoes fit" (literally, "my shoes fit me")
{torgh lumey waqmey} "the shoes fit Torg"
{waqmeywIj vImey} "I fit my shoes" --- end quote ---
More clarification about the difference between {mey} and {nel}:
--- begin quote --- When a piece of a jigsaw puzzle fits into the right spot, you can say:
{Qay'mol mey (Qay'mol) teSra'} "the (puzzle) piece fits (into) the puzzle" (In this context, you don't have to repeat {Qay'mol}, but it's fine if you do.)
or
{nelchu' Qay'mol teSra'} "the puzzle piece fits perfectly"
The first focuses on the interlocking of the pieces; the second focuses on the piece in question occupying the identically shaped space where it goes. --- end quote ---
One more addition I just received from Maltz. No additional info, just a clarification in case it was needed. --- begin quote --- If X and Y fit together properly, you can say {X mey Y} or {mey'chuq X Y je}. --- end quote --- -- De'vID
On Jan 22, 2019, at 10:57, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
--- begin quote --- If X and Y fit together properly, you can say {X mey Y} or {mey'chuq X Y je}. --- end quote ---
Surely, that’s a mistype for {meychuq}, since it’s consistently been {mey} in all of the other places this new verb has been used, and we don’t need to invent a rule to explain the extra {qaghwI'} when it takes the suffix {-chuq} here, qar'a'?
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:18, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2019, at 10:57, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
--- begin quote --- If X and Y fit together properly, you can say {X mey Y} or {mey'chuq X Y je}. --- end quote ---
Surely, that’s a mistype for {meychuq}, since it’s consistently been {mey} in all of the other places this new verb has been used, and we don’t need to invent a rule to explain the extra {qaghwI'} when it takes the suffix {-chuq} here, qar'a'?
Yes, that's just a typo. -- De'vID
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:38 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 at 16:26, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists.
I relayed your question to Dr. Okrand, who asked Maltz about it. I just got his reply: {paSlogh} works like {ngop}.
--- begin quote --- {paSlogh} is an inherently plural noun, grammatically singular. {tu'mI'} the word for one sock. The usual way to say "pair of socks" is {paSlogh chang'eng}; {tu'mI' chang'eng} is odd, but if you said it, you'd be understood. --- end quote ---
It's a shame "Laugh In" went off the air before Maltz got to Earth. He would have appreciated its catchphrases on a whole new level.
jIH:
The klingon word for "socks" is {paSlogh}. Is this word to be treated as being grammatically singular, and is it possible to say "one sock" in klingon ? As far as I know, it is unknown if a singular form exists. De'vID: I relayed your question to Dr. Okrand
Thank you De'vID ! ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
participants (6)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel