Hoch, {-pu'}/{-mey}, the indefinite, and cats
vIghro' luleghlu' someone sees the cats vIghro'mey luleghlu' someone sees the cats Both of the above are equally correct, since the plural is shown by the {lu-}, and of course plural suffixes are optional, where the context is clear. But suppose, I want to say "someone sees all cats"; what do I write ? Is {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} sufficient/correct, because the plurality is shown by the {lu-}, or is writing here {Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu'} actually mandatory, because {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} could be understood as "someone sees all each cat" ? ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non sweet Ca'Non
On 5/17/2019 8:49 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
vIghro' luleghlu' someone sees the cats
vIghro'mey luleghlu' someone sees the cats
Both of the above are equally correct, since the plural is shown by the {lu-}, and of course plural suffixes are optional, where the context is clear.
But suppose, I want to say "someone sees all cats"; what do I write ?
Is {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} sufficient/correct, because the plurality is shown by the {lu-}, or is writing here {Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu'} actually mandatory, because {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} could be understood as "someone sees all each cat" ?
The rule is that to get the /all X's/ meaning from *Hoch,* you have to use an explicit plural suffix, not that the noun phrase has to be unambiguously plural. The only correct answer is *Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu'*/all cats are seen./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Wouldn’t {Hoch vIghro’ luleghlu’} be “Someone sees each cat”? Sent from my iPad
On May 17, 2019, at 09:16, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/17/2019 8:49 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: vIghro' luleghlu' someone sees the cats
vIghro'mey luleghlu' someone sees the cats
Both of the above are equally correct, since the plural is shown by the {lu-}, and of course plural suffixes are optional, where the context is clear.
But suppose, I want to say "someone sees all cats"; what do I write ?
Is {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} sufficient/correct, because the plurality is shown by the {lu-}, or is writing here {Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu'} actually mandatory, because {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} could be understood as "someone sees all each cat" ? The rule is that to get the all X's meaning from Hoch, you have to use an explicit plural suffix, not that the noun phrase has to be unambiguously plural. The only correct answer is Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu' all cats are seen.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/17/2019 11:19 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Wouldn’t {Hoch vIghro’ luleghlu’} be “Someone sees each cat”?
Depends on whether *Hoch vIghro'* /each cat /is considered singular or plural. This has been discussed before, but I don't remember the conclusion. If it's plural, it's as you say. If it's singular, the sentence needs to be *Hoch vIghro' leghlu'*/each cat is seen./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jevreH:
Wouldn’t {Hoch vIghro’ luleghlu’} be “Someone sees each cat”?
I think that because of the {lulughlu'} the meaning *has* to be "someone sees them". jevreH:
Wouldn’t {Hoch vIghro’ luleghlu’} be “Someone sees each cat”? SuStel: Depends on whether Hoch vIghro' each cat is considered singular or plural. This has been discussed before, but I don't remember the conclusion. If it's plural, it's as you say. If it's singular, the sentence needs to be Hoch vIghro' leghlu' each cat is seen.
I remember for sure, that sometime in the past, we had discussed in this list whether {Hoch} used on its own, is to be considered singular or plural. And I remember this for sure, because the whole discussion had started because of me (what a surprise..). In that thread (which sadly its' title I don't remember), I used {Hoch} on its own as a subject in a sentence, treating it as being grammatically plural. i.e. I wrote something like {vIghro' lulegh Hoch} for "all see the cat". Then, someone, wrote that using {Hoch} on its own in this context, despite the fact that it's used to describe "many people", *should* be treated as grammatically singular. So, a discussion started, many arguments were presented supporting both possibilities (i.e. whether it should be considered grammatically singular or plural), and of course, no agreement finally was reached. I remember all this for sure.. But that discussion, was about the use of {Hoch} on its own. During the three years, this list had the unfortune of me being here, I don't remember ever a discussion taking place with regards whether constructions as {Hoch vIghro'} or {Hoch vIghro'mey} are singular or plural. I don't remember ever any doubt about them. And in every klingon message I've read, people treat {Hoch singular noun} as singular, and {Hoch plural noun} as plural. ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non cures everything
On 5/17/2019 11:29 AM, SuStel wrote:
On 5/17/2019 11:19 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Wouldn’t {Hoch vIghro’ luleghlu’} be “Someone sees each cat”?
Depends on whether *Hoch vIghro'* /each cat /is considered singular or plural. This has been discussed before, but I don't remember the conclusion. If it's plural, it's as you say. If it's singular, the sentence needs to be *Hoch vIghro' leghlu'*/each cat is seen./
Ah, it's singular, as demonstrated by the proverbs in TKD that end in *'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan.* It's not *'e' lutul.* So the correct form is *Hoch vIghro' leghlu'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
And constructions like {Hoch 'ebmey} are treated as grammatically plural, as we have the Ca'Non {Hoch 'ebmey tIjon} (tkw p.51). So, to summarize this thread: {Hoch vIghro'} = each cat (to be treated as grammatically singular) {Hoch 'ebmey} = all opportunities (to be treated as grammatically plural} And (the subject of this thread), in order to say "someone sees all cats", we *have* to place the {-mey} on the noun after the {Hoch}, thus writing {Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu'}. ~ m. qunen'oS the nutritional value of fresh Ca'Non juice
On May 17, 2019, at 1:33 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
And (the subject of this thread), in order to say "someone sees all cats", we *have* to place the {-mey} on the noun after the {Hoch}, thus writing {Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu'}.
In my internalized model of how {Hoch X} works, the alternative {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} violates a kind of {rom}. The plural indication of the verb prefix isn’t strong enough to coerce {Hoch vIghro'} into meaning {Hoch vIghro'mey}. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 5/17/2019 2:00 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On May 17, 2019, at 1:33 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
And (the subject of this thread), in order to say "someone sees all cats", we *have* to place the {-mey} on the noun after the {Hoch}, thus writing {Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu'}.
In my internalized model of how {Hoch X} works, the alternative {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} violates a kind of {rom}. The plural indication of the verb prefix isn’t strong enough to coerce {Hoch vIghro'} into meaning {Hoch vIghro'mey}.
I see the prefix as entirely passive. It agrees with the subject and some object, whether or not those subjects or objects are present in the sentence. The prefix never enforces person or number on its own. This is why it drives me nuts when people say things like *maghom Hoch* for /We all meet./ The prefix doesn't force *Hoch* to become first-person plural.*Hoch* is third-person singular and the prefix has no choice but to agree with it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghunchu'wI':
In my internalized model of how {Hoch X} works, the alternative {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'} violates a kind of {rom}. The plural indication of the verb prefix isn’t strong enough to coerce {Hoch vIghro'} into meaning {Hoch vIghro'mey}.
I don't understand a word of this.. Can you say it with simpler words ? ~ m. qunen'oS keep calm and worship Ca'Non
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 20:51, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't understand a word of this.. Can you say it with simpler words ?
What exactly didn't you understand? I'll try to express what {ghunchu'wI'} wrote in a different way:
ghunchu'wI':
In my internalized model of how {Hoch X} works,
"According to my beliefs about how {Hoch} works when it comes before a noun..."
the alternative {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'}
"the other way to write the sentence (i.e., other than {Hoch vIghro'mey luleghlu'}), namely, to drop the {-mey} suffix and write it as {Hoch vIghro' luleghlu'}..."
violates a kind of {rom}.
"breaks the rule that the verb prefix {lu-}, which when used with {-lu'} means that the object is plural, has to agree with the actual object..." The plural indication
of the verb prefix isn’t strong enough to coerce {Hoch vIghro'} into meaning {Hoch vIghro'mey}.
"because while normally, when the object doesn't have a plural suffix it could be either singular or plural, and thus the verb prefix could force its means to become plural (since both interpretations are equally strong otherwise), in the case of {Hoch vIghro'}, because {Hoch vIghro'} and {Hoch vIghro'mey} mean different things, the verb prefix isn't strong enough to overcome this difference." Does that help? That's how I understood it. Possibly {ghunchu'wI'} meant something different, in which case he can clarify it himself. I thought what he wrote was fairly easy to understand, and my explanation actually makes it more complicated. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel