[1486] in tlhIngan-Hol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

plurality of conjunctions

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Sep 2 11:11:57 1993

Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 09:16:52 EDT


On Sep 2,  7:32am, DSTRADER@delphi.com wrote:
...
> The following sentences are unquestionably correct:
> {yaS HoD je DIlegh}
> {yaS HoD ghap wIlegh}
> But what if the conjunction was joq. Is it singular or plural?????
> {yaS HoD joq wIlegh}/{yaS HoD joq DIlegh}
...
> Is yaS HoD joq singular or plural?????????

     The obvious answer is "Yes, it is singular or plural."

     In the particular example chosen, the speaker SHOULD already KNOW if
what she or he sees is singular or plural and would use the verbal prefix to
disambiguate the meaning of joq in this specific usage. My suspicion is that
it would have to be plural in this instance (I see two or more individuals
who are either officers or captains or maybe there's one or more of each).
Otherwise, if I only saw one individual, ghap would be the more appropriate
conjunction.

     Most real uses of joq will probably be more clearly plural, like a
statement from a group of Klingon non-officer soldiers:

                    yaSpu' HoDpu' joq DIlob

     This better suits the nature of joq, since it always implies the
POSSIBILITY of plurality, while ghap EXCLUDES the possibility of the
combination. More interesting perhaps is the singularity/plurality of ghap
in:

                wa' yIH cha' verenganpu' ghap DIHoH DIneH

     This is to measure our frustration by saying that we are angry enough
that to quench our emotions, we want to kill either a tribble or two Ferengis
(since it takes at least two Ferengis to bother us as much as a single
tribble). Even in English, this is ambiguous as to whether the "or" makes the
combination singular or plural. I personally chose the plural again because
there is the potential of plurality, but my suspicion is that the meaning
would be clear either way and most Klingons would simply not care much
whether you said "wa' yIH cha' verenganpu' ghap DIHoH wIneH" or "wa' yIH cha'
verenganpu' ghap wIHoH wIneH". The meaning is clear either way.

--   charghwI'


home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post