[110650] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Pluralizing inherently plural nouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Wed Aug 16 11:29:49 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cLLZ9WLnP48+ew3xJpup650vW=ZrRLGKrHZ0ntvtvBoxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:29:46 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============2566592120818686069==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c11c35ce0230f0556e0904f"
--94eb2c11c35ce0230f0556e0904f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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.
--94eb2c11c35ce0230f0556e0904f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:23 AM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>></=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Does adding the {-pu'} to the singular form of an inherently plural<br>
noun, as in the case of {mangpu'}, indicate "soldiers scattered al=
l<br>
over the place" ?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, why would it=
? {-pu'} doesn't have any notion of "scattered all about"=
. That's {-mey}.=C2=A0<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex">So, as I understand this - and someone correct me if I'm wrong=
- it<br>
isn't grammatically wrong to add a plural suffix, to an inherently<br>
plural noun; it is just that the resulting word/meaning is<br>
strange/awkward.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It sounds strange and =
awkward <i>because</i> it is grammatically wrong. It is, in fact, possible =
for Klingons to say things that are not 100% grammatically precise. That se=
ction of TKD is about such grammatical errors, specifically the ones common=
ly made by children. <br>=C2=A0</div><div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex">
The use of {bIH} with {ngopmey}, isn't grammatically wrong.<br></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>It is grammatically wrong, but the main error is t=
he {ngopmey}, not in the verb agreement. If {ngopmey} were an acceptable pl=
ural word, {bIH} would be the proper word to go with it.</div><div><br>=C2=
=A0</div></div><br></div></div>
--94eb2c11c35ce0230f0556e0904f--
--===============2566592120818686069==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============2566592120818686069==--
