[90816] in tlhIngan-Hol
[Tlhingan-hol] Inherently plural nouns and numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Philip Newton)
Mon Nov 21 03:39:39 2011
From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:38:58 +0100
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Inherently plural nouns take singular agreement, net Sov. This applies
to pronouns (e.g {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'} rather than *{nuqDaq bIH
ngop'e'}) and verb prefixes (e.g. {no'lI' yIvuv!} rather than *{no'lI'
tIvuv!}).
Since mentioning inherently plural nouns as possibly being similar to
collective nouns in English, I wonder whether it's possible to use
numbers with them, and if so, how.
If we wash one glass, then {wa' HIvje' wISay'moH}. If we wash three
glasses, then {wej HIvje'mey DISay'moH} or {wej HIvje' DISay'moH}
(since the -mey is optional, especially when clear from the context
such as the explicit number word or the verb prefix.)
Now if we wash one plate, then {wa' jengva' wISay'moH} - I think
that's pretty uncontroversial.
But what if we wash three plates? Do we {wej ngop wISay'moH}? {wej
jengva'mey wISay'moH}? Do we maybe have to add an explicitly countable
word, like "three *pairs* of scissors" or "three *items* of furniture"
in English - {wej ngop 'ay'(mey) DISay'moH} or {wej ngop
chovnatlh(mey) DISay'moH} or the like? Something completely different?
The "inherently plural nouns act like English collective nouns"
approach would imply that you can't count them directly... while if
they merely act as irregular plurals, then perhaps {vagh cha} for
"five torpedoes" makes sense.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
