[3705] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: choyaj'a'?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Mar 9 03:41:49 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 94 01:37:30 -0700
charghwI' on tlhIH and 'ar:
> I thought of that and decided that it is probably not a good idea. This
>is one of those picky little rules you have to remember from the grammar. The
>last thing under "Questions", TKD 6.4 says of {'ar} "...it can never follow a
>noun with a plural suffix." This presses one toward applying it to singular
>nouns in general.
I don't think so; I think you are over-reaching. It says explicitly
plural suffixes.
...
> That follows the rule. Now if it really is okay to use {tlhIH} with
>{'ar} because, though it is plural, it has no plural suffix, then you are
>right. I am willing to accept that possibility. What do the grammarians
>think?
That's my take. It doesn't say no plural, it says no plural suffix.
An interesting question we might ask at the same time is: can you
use 'ar with an inately plural noun? That is, can you say: cha 'ar
or does it have to be peng 'ar? I see no reason cha 'ar is
syntactically wrong (though it may not be the choice,
stylistically-- we don't know).
> Hmm. Thinking about it more, I see that we again suffer from Okrand's
>vagueness. He did not say that the verbal prefix could not tell us that the
>noun was plural even if it were without the plural suffix. His only examples
>use third person subjects, whose number cannot be distinguished from the
>verbal prefix. I think I still favor just using singular nouns with {'ar}. I
>think it makes sense as a thing that is simply stylistic to the language.
>Again, I am open to other opinions.
Actually, I think this is one case were he was extremely clear. He
said you can't use a plural suffix on a noun with 'ar. That's
pretty clear. That's all he said. That's all that applies.
In particular, be careful not to fall into the age-old trap: When
we follow the explicit rule and eschew a plural suffix on an 'ar
noun, *that does not mean the noun is singular*. Again, lack of an
explicit plural suffix does not mean a noun is necessarily singular.
It therefore does not necessarily follow *at all* that things with
'ar are considered singular in any way shape or form. An alternate
explanation might be that, in fact, they are very strongly
considered *plural* in nature, so much so that one never uses the
plural suffix because it would be so hugely *redundant*.
So, in short, I think we trod on shakey ground if we try to read
more into it than what he said.
--Krankor
