Klingon Word of the Day: toyDal (noun)
Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, May 21, 2026 Klingon word: toyDal Part of speech: noun Definition: tactic Source: qep'a' 28 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org).
Klingon word: toyDal Part of speech: noun Definition: tactic Source: qep'a' 28 [2021] _______________________________________________ This is the singular form of an inherently plural noun. The request for this word was: "{to'} has the gloss of "tactics" but there doesn't appear to be a word for a singular tactic, which is of course different than strategy in scale." SEE: to' tactics (plural n.) - potlhbe' to'. [Tactics aren't important. (i.e. get it anyway you can!)] (ST3 DVD case) SEE ALSO: Dup strategy (n) tuH adventure, maneuver (n) - "The noun {tuH} refers to a military maneuver of any kind. A specific plan or stratagem usually has a code name ({per yuD} [literally, 'dishonest label']) coined especially for the occasion and not necessarily used again." (KGT 48) TREK TRIVIA: "[Ambassador] V'Lar's treatise on negotiating tactics is the definitive text on the subject." (T'Pol, ENT "Cease Fire") -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
I don't see why we don't call these "inherently singular nouns." -----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Steven Boozer via tlhIngan-Hol Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 11:46 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Cc: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: toyDal (noun) Klingon word: toyDal Part of speech: noun Definition: tactic Source: qep'a' 28 [2021] _______________________________________________ This is the singular form of an inherently plural noun.
I agree, but I copied the note from KlingonWiki to save some typing: https://klingon.wiki/Word/ToyDal Voragh ------------------------------Original Message------------------------------ From: SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol I don't see why we don't call these "inherently singular nouns." --------------Original Message-------------- From: Steven Boozer via tlhIngan-Hol Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 11:46 AM Klingon word: toyDal Part of speech: noun Definition: tactic Source: qep'a' 28 [2021] _______________________________________________ This is the singular form of an inherently plural noun.
Am 21.05.2026 um 17:56 schrieb SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol:
I don't see why we don't call these "inherently singular nouns."
Because that is a term that was not used in TKD. Section 3.3.2 says: "Finally, some nouns in Klingon are inherently or always plural in meaning, [...]" and then: "The singular counterparts of such words are utterly distinct:" and "The singular forms may take the {-mey} suffix, [...]" Going further (I might be wrong, I am not a linguist), the word "inherently plural" roughly means that a noun includes a plural meaning (in Klingon, not in English). Reversing this definition would mean that a "inherently singular noun" is ONLY singular. But TKD clearly says that those singular forms can take plural suffixes, and also "The plural suffixes are not necessary when a number is used." So, short: an inherent plural noun is ALWAYS plural. Its singular form CAN be singular but also plural. That's why it's not an "inherently singular noun".
-----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Steven Boozer via tlhIngan-Hol Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 11:46 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Cc: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: toyDal (noun)
Klingon word: toyDal Part of speech: noun Definition: tactic Source: qep'a' 28 [2021] _______________________________________________
This is the singular form of an inherently plural noun. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" https://tlhInganHol.com https://klingon.wiki/En/InherentPlural
Are we certain that {toyDal} and {to'} form one of these irregular singular-plural pairs, like {jengva'} and {ngop}? It seems to me that the concept of "tactics" is potentially distinct from simply the plural form of "tactic"; it is more of a framework or a field of study. {to' qelDI' SIj martaq 'ach 'ejyo' toyDalmey HaDta' ghawran. vaj Qu'vamvaD nIv ghawran.} //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 12:12:43 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Cc: Lieven L. Litaer Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: toyDal (noun) Am 21.05.2026 um 17:56 schrieb SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol:
I don't see why we don't call these "inherently singular nouns."
Because that is a term that was not used in TKD. Section 3.3.2 says: "Finally, some nouns in Klingon are inherently or always plural in meaning, [...]" and then: "The singular counterparts of such words are utterly distinct:" and "The singular forms may take the {-mey} suffix, [...]" Going further (I might be wrong, I am not a linguist), the word "inherently plural" roughly means that a noun includes a plural meaning (in Klingon, not in English). Reversing this definition would mean that a "inherently singular noun" is ONLY singular. But TKD clearly says that those singular forms can take plural suffixes, and also "The plural suffixes are not necessary when a number is used." So, short: an inherent plural noun is ALWAYS plural. Its singular form CAN be singular but also plural. That's why it's not an "inherently singular noun".
-----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Steven Boozer via tlhIngan-Hol Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 11:46 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Cc: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: toyDal (noun)
Klingon word: toyDal Part of speech: noun Definition: tactic Source: qep'a' 28 [2021] _______________________________________________
This is the singular form of an inherently plural noun. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" https://tlhInganHol.com https://klingon.wiki/En/InherentPlural _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org ________________________________ Observera att avs?ndaren inte ?r anst?lld vid Kungliga Tekniska h?gskolan. KTH ansvarar inte f?r ?sikter, p?st?enden eller personuppgifter som f?rmedlas i detta meddelande. Please note that the sender is not employed by KTH Royal Institute of Technology. KTH is not responsible for the opinions, claims or personal data conveyed in this message.
I see no reason we can't use terminology that doesn't appear in TKD if it aptly describes something. I'm not saying we should force others to use such terms; I'm just remarking that the community has somehow avoided this particular phrase. A noun like {peng} isn't inherently singular because it can't be pluralized. It's inherently singular because the singularness is inherent to the noun. A noun like {nuH} is neither singular nor plural. It can be used to mean either, both, or neither all at once. nuH Suq ghoqwI'. "The spy obtains the weapon." "The spy obtains the weapons." "The spies obtain the weapons." A noun like {peng} can't do this. {peng} is specifically one torpedo. *Inherently,* it never refers to multiple torpedoes. You could say {pengmey} to refer to torpedoes scattered about, but adding -mey isn't inherent meaning. The argument isn't that you can't pluralize an inherently singular noun; it's that its inherent meaning is specifically singular. So when I say "inherently singular noun," that's what I mean. The noun inherently refers to only a singular thing. There is no singular/plural/whatever meaning that most nouns have. peng Suq mang. "The soldier obtains the torpedo." This *cannot* mean anything about multiple soldiers or multiple torpedoes. To say that, you'd need to either change or inflect the words to *add* the plurality, making it not inherent to the words. And when we say "inherently plural noun," we mean a noun that *inherently* refers to a collection of things, never to a singular thing. It just so happens that there's no further pluralizing to do with a noun like this, and there is no inflection for being singular, so we don't try to singularize words like {cha}. So {peng} is as much an inherently singular noun as {cha} is an inherently plural noun. The inherent meaning of {peng} is exclusively singular, just as the inherent meaning of {cha} is exclusively plural. For most nouns, there is no inherent singularity or plurality. -----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 6:13 AM Am 21.05.2026 um 17:56 schrieb SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol:
I don't see why we don't call these "inherently singular nouns."
Because that is a term that was not used in TKD. Section 3.3.2 says: "Finally, some nouns in Klingon are inherently or always plural in meaning, [...]" and then: "The singular counterparts of such words are utterly distinct:" and "The singular forms may take the {-mey} suffix, [...]" Going further (I might be wrong, I am not a linguist), the word "inherently plural" roughly means that a noun includes a plural meaning (in Klingon, not in English). Reversing this definition would mean that a "inherently singular noun" is ONLY singular. But TKD clearly says that those singular forms can take plural suffixes, and also "The plural suffixes are not necessary when a number is used." So, short: an inherent plural noun is ALWAYS plural. Its singular form CAN be singular but also plural. That's why it's not an "inherently singular noun".
-----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Steven Boozer via tlhIngan-Hol Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 11:46 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Cc: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: toyDal (noun)
Klingon word: toyDal Part of speech: noun Definition: tactic Source: qep'a' 28 [2021] _______________________________________________
This is the singular form of an inherently plural noun.
Am 27.05.2026 um 15:41 schrieb SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol:
I see no reason we can't use terminology that doesn't appear in TKD if it aptly describes something.
I partially agree, e.g. we use the "prefix trick", which also is no canon term. On the other hand, I remember earlier discussions on this list where it was said that we should not impose English Grammar on the Klingon language. There were many situation where somebody tried to use English grammar terminology and tried to find it in Klingon, but we had to say that it doesn't exist in Klingon. Therefore, especially in this case, I would avoid using this "inherently singular" term, because it seems not so clear. Also, because English grammar does it the other way around.
I'm not saying we should force others to use such terms; I'm just remarking that the community has somehow avoided this particular phrase.
Ah, yeah, just what I said. wa' DoS we qIp.
A noun like {peng} isn't inherently singular because it can't be pluralized. It's inherently singular because the singularness is inherent to the noun.
A noun like {peng} can't do this. {peng} is specifically one torpedo.
But it is still possible. Please follow my path: {wej cha} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct {wej pengmey} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct TKD say that when a number is used, the suffix may be omitted, so: {wej peng} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct. I agree that {peng} is a singular form, but depending on usage, this phrase can transport the plural meaning.
So {peng} is as much an inherently singular noun as {cha} is an inherently plural noun.
Not really: - {wej peng} can be plural. - {wa' cha} is nonsense, because {cha} is inherently plural. In other words, I can have many things of 1, but not 1 thing of a group of many. Nevertheless, I accept your opinion and statement, and won't delve into deeper discussion on this subject. I might be wrong, after all. As for now, I will avoid that phrase, simply because it's not used as such in TKD. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" https://tlhInganHol.com https://klingon.wiki/En/Plural
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol
Am 27.05.2026 um 15:41 schrieb SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol: On the other hand, I remember earlier discussions on this list where it was said that we should not impose English Grammar on the Klingon language.
I'm not imposing English grammar on Klingon. I'm not saying that {peng} is exactly like the English word "torpedo" without a plural inflection. (Heck, I doubt English really has a concept of an inherently singular noun.) I'm starting with a term Okrand uses to describe something in Klingon, "inherently plural noun," and recognizing that their singular counterparts are, in fact, inherently singular, and that this would be a good term for them.
There were many situation where somebody tried to use English grammar terminology and tried to find it in Klingon, but we had to say that it doesn't exist in Klingon.
But I'm not borrowing from English grammar. I've never heard a linguist use the phrase "inherently singular noun" when referring to English grammar. A quick Google search suggests that some languages, not English, do have such a thing. One point about English raised is that uncountable nouns in English use the singular form, but that's not what we're talking about here (you can't say "three furnitures").
A noun like {peng} isn't inherently singular because it can't be pluralized. It's inherently singular because the singularness is inherent to the noun.
A noun like {peng} can't do this. {peng} is specifically one torpedo.
But it is still possible. Please follow my path:
{wej cha} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct {wej pengmey} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct
TKD say that when a number is used, the suffix may be omitted, so: {wej peng} "three torpedoes" is grammatically correct.
I agree that {peng} is a singular form, but depending on usage, this phrase can transport the plural meaning.
This is no different than the {pengmey} example I cited above. You're using the word {wej} to impart the plural meaning; the word {peng} carries no plural meaning at all. Inherently, the word is singular. If I say {nuH}, this means both "weapon" and "weapons." It is neither inherently singular nor inherently plural. If I say {wej nuH}, this is a plural phrase, but the plurality comes from the {wej}, not the {nuH}. We know that {nuH} can be singular or plural. So when I say {wej peng}, this is an identical situation. The plurality comes from the {wej}, not the {peng}. {peng} remains inherently singular. In other words, being singular is part of the MEANING of {peng}. To a Klingon, {peng} doesn't just mean "torpedo"; it specifically means "singular torpedo." Similarly, being plural is part of the MEANING of {cha}. To a Klingon, {cha} doesn't just mean "torpedoes"; it means "plural torpedoes." You cannot remove the "singular" from the meaning of {peng}, just as you cannot remove the {plural} from the meaning of {cha}: these meanings are baked into the words. Yes, you can pluralize {peng}, but you're saying "three singular torpedoes."
- {wa' cha} is nonsense, because {cha} is inherently plural.
It's probably nonsense, but there is something to be said for the idea that {cha} means something like "collection of torpedoes." You can have one collection of torpedoes. At least, you can in English. I don't buy this argument myself, but I present it as a demonstration that the claim that {wa' cha} is nonsense is not as definite as your statement makes it.
participants (5)
-
Felix Malmenbeck -
Klingon Word of the Day -
Lieven L. Litaer -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel