(KGT 49f)L

The word mangpu' is seldom used, but it is not ungrammatical. It carries with it the notion that there are individuals (more than one {mang}) making up the group (KGT 33-34) {-mey} to these nouns [...] to indicate that the items are scattered about ({jengva'mey}, plates scattered all over the place)

Does adding the {-pu'} to the singular form of an inherently plural noun, as in the case of {mangpu'}, indicate "soldiers scattered all over the place" ? (KGT 33-34):

Children seem to be aware of the existence of the inherently plural forms, however, for they use them as well, though usually with the suffix {-mey} superfluously appended: {chamey} (torpedoeses), {ngopmey} (plateses).

So, as I understand this - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - it isn't grammatically wrong to add a plural suffix, to an inherently plural noun; it is just that the resulting word/meaning is strange/awkward. (KGT 33-34):

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?").

And here: The use of {bIH} with {ngop}, is grammatically wrong. The use of {bIH} with {ngopmey}, isn't grammatically wrong. The {nuqDaq bIH ngop'e'?} ("Where are the plates?"), is grammatically wrong. If these conclusions are wrong, then someone please correct me. qunnoq On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

Or you could use the singular form {DoS} "target". E.g. {DoSmey} "targets scattered all about" (TKD).

Many inherently plural nouns have a singular equivalent:

DoS/ray' target(s) jengva'/ngop plate(s) mang/negh soldier(s) peng/cha torpedo(es) qempa'/no' ancestor(s) Sup/jo resource(s) vIj/chuyDaH thruster(s)

It is possible to use plural suffixes with these singular forms when stressing individuality over the collective. For example, see Okrand's discussion of {mang}:

(KGT 49f)L The word mangpu' is seldom used, but it is not ungrammatical. It carries with it the notion that there are individuals (more than one {mang}) making up the group; {negh} focuses on the group as a unit.

But be careful: Sometimes doing so may be perceived as just an error:

(KGT 33-34): Another grammatical feature of Klingon about which children frequently become confused involves nouns that are inherently plural, such as {cha} (torpedoes) and{ ngop} (plates [for eating]), as opposed to their singular counterparts {peng} (torpedo) and {jengva'} (plate). Instead of using the special plural forms, children tend forms plurals of these words by simply adding the plural suffix {-mey} to the singular forms ({pengmey, jengva'mey}) ... Adults also add {-mey} to these nouns, but they do so to indicate that the items are scattered about ({jengva'mey}, plates scattered all over the place). For children who say {jengva'mey}, it apparently means simply plates; that is, it is nothing more than the plural form of {jengva'}. Children seem to be aware of the existence of the inherently plural forms, however, for they use them as well, though usually with the suffix {-mey} superfluously appended: {chamey} (torpedoeses), {ngopmey} (plateses). Inherently plural n ouns 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?").

--Voragh

-----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of Lieven

Am 16.08.2017 um 15:39 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:

...

If have an inherently plural noun, e.g. {ray'} for "targets", and we want to express "many targets", then what do we say ?

{ray'mey}

Pluralizing aplural noun is like saying "targetses" or "mens".

...

or {ray' law'} ?

This can never be wrong; it follows grammar perfectly.

-- Lieven L. Litaer _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:23 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Does adding the {-pu'} to the singular form of an inherently plural noun, as in the case of {mangpu'}, indicate "soldiers scattered all over the place" ?

No, why would it? {-pu'} doesn't have any notion of "scattered all about". That's {-mey}.

So, as I understand this - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - it isn't grammatically wrong to add a plural suffix, to an inherently plural noun; it is just that the resulting word/meaning is strange/awkward.

It sounds strange and awkward *because* it is grammatically wrong. It is, in fact, possible for Klingons to say things that are not 100% grammatically precise. That section of TKD is about such grammatical errors, specifically the ones commonly made by children.

The use of {bIH} with {ngopmey}, isn't grammatically wrong.

It is grammatically wrong, but the main error is the {ngopmey}, not in the verb agreement. If {ngopmey} were an acceptable plural word, {bIH} would be the proper word to go with it.