[90925] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Inherently plural nouns and numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brent Kesler)
Sat Nov 26 23:46:34 2011
In-Reply-To: <4ECBE23B.40201@trimboli.name>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:46:12 -0800
From: Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============8336853692418451717==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444715bcd44e904b2b010c6
--f46d0444715bcd44e904b2b010c6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:49 AM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote=
:
> On 11/22/2011 12:28 PM, Brent Kesler wrote:
>
>> As for KGT, it may seem strange to say "Always trust your instinct" in
>> English (what? I have just one?), but I see no reason why the concept
>> of instinct has to be plural. How many times do we say things like "I
>> know it by instinct"? Not instincts, not one particular instinct, just
>> instinct.
>>
>
> That's true, but if {Duj} represents that which can be translated either
> "instinct" or "instincts," what is the meaning of {Dujmey} in {Duj[mey]
> tIvoqtaH}, and why would you choose it over singular {Duj}?
>
I didn't explain myself well. All I'm saying is that even the English word
"instinct" can be singular, plural, or collective. We can talk about one
instinct (eg, the instinct to survive), several instincts, (eg, the
instinct to survive and the instinct to mate), or instinct as just a
general intuitive power that doesn't really have a plural (eg, "I'm
navigating by instinct").
In that case, {Dujmey} simply means "instincts", ie, it is the plural of
{Duj}. {Dujmey tIvoqtaH} means you have several instincts and you should
trust them. {Duj yIvoqtaH} means either that you have one and only one
instinct, one particular instinct (out of several) that should be trusted
in this particular case, or that you have a general intuitive power that
you should trust.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:56 AM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote=
:
>
>> TKW 27: The Klingon word for "instincts" is {Duj}, and it is
>> grammatically correct to treat it as singular (a bundle or collection
>> of instincts) or plural (individual instincts).
>>
>
> It says that {Duj} can be grammatically singular ("a collection of
> instincts")=97that is, it's an inherently plural noun=97or that {Duj} can=
be
> grammatically plural (i.e., {Dujmey}), where a single {Duj} is a single
> instinct.
>
> In this case, both {DujlIj yIvoq} and {DujlIj tIvoq} are correct, but hav=
e
> a subtle difference. {DujlIj yIvoq} means "trust the collection of your
> instincts"; {DujlIj tIvoq} means "trust each of your instincts, taken
> individually.'
If I understand your interpretation correctly, {Duj} is an irregular plural
with no singular. So like {ngop} with no {jengva'}? Plus a special meaning
for {ngopmey}? Does that mean talking about one particular instinct is
impossible? Or that a single instinct MUST be explicitly marked as such,
eg, {wa' Dujvam yIvoq}? I think that's a pretty big conclusion to take from
the gloss of a proverb and an offhand remark from TKW, which is a cultural
rather than linguistic text.
I think {DujlIj yIvoq} can mean "trust the collection of your instincts,
your general intuitive power" (collective) or "trust that one particular
instinct that we've been talking about in this context" (singular), while
{DujlIj tIvoq} means "Trust your several instincts" (plural; either as a
group or each in its turn). In other words, that subtle difference is there
only if we look for it.
One of the problems with studying Klingon is that Okrand's descriptions can
be maddeningly imprecise, especially since he writes for the general public
rather than fellow linguists. That leaves us trying to find hidden meaning
in his words, even when he's just giving a quick and dirty interpretation
that we shouldn't consider as normative. I think the three senses of
"instinct" (singular, plural, and collective) fit nicely into what we've
seen in the Klingon canon so far. That interpretation, plus the fact that
plurals don't have to be explicitly marked, explains everything we've seen.
I think treating {Duj} as an inherent plural that has no singular and
behaves differently with the {-mey} suffix--while possible--is a rather
shocking conclusion to draw from such little evidence.
bI'reng
--f46d0444715bcd44e904b2b010c6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:49 AM, David Trimboli=
=A0<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:david@trimboli.name" target=3D"_=
blank">david@trimboli.name</a>></span>=A0wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;mar=
gin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bor=
der-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On 11/22/2011 12:28 PM, Brent Kesler wrote:</div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;mar=
gin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bor=
der-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>As for KGT, it may seem strange to say "Always trust your instinc=
t" in<br>English (what? I have just one?), but I see no reason why the=
concept<br>of instinct has to be plural. How many times do we say things l=
ike "I<br>
know it by instinct"? Not instincts, not one particular instinct, just=
<br>instinct.<br></div></blockquote><br>That's true, but if {Duj} repre=
sents that which can be translated either "instinct" or "ins=
tincts," what is the meaning of {Dujmey} in {Duj[mey] tIvoqtaH}, and w=
hy would you choose it over singular {Duj}?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't explain myself well. All I=
9;m saying is that even the English word "instinct" can be singul=
ar, plural, or collective. We can talk about one instinct (eg, the instinct=
to survive), several instincts, (eg, the instinct to survive and the insti=
nct to mate), or instinct as just a general intuitive power that doesn'=
t really have a plural (eg, "I'm navigating by instinct").</d=
iv>
<div><br></div><div>In that case, {Dujmey} simply means "instincts&quo=
t;, ie, it is the plural of {Duj}. {Dujmey tIvoqtaH} means you have several=
instincts and you should trust them. {Duj yIvoqtaH} means either that you =
have one and only one instinct, one particular instinct (out of several) th=
at should be trusted in this particular case, or that you have a general in=
tuitive power that you should trust.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov =
22, 2011 at 9:56 AM, David Trimboli <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:david@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">david@trimboli.name</a>></span> =
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
TKW 27: =A0The Klingon word for "instincts" is {Duj}, and it is<b=
r>
grammatically correct to treat it as singular (a bundle or collection<br>
of instincts) or plural (individual instincts).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
It says that {Duj} can be grammatically singular ("a collection of ins=
tincts")=97that is, it's an inherently plural noun=97or that {Duj}=
can be grammatically plural (i.e., {Dujmey}), where a single {Duj} is a si=
ngle instinct.<br>
<br>
In this case, both {DujlIj yIvoq} and {DujlIj tIvoq} are correct, but have =
a subtle difference. {DujlIj yIvoq} means "trust the collection of you=
r instincts"; {DujlIj tIvoq} means "trust each of your instincts,=
taken individually.'</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div><div>If I understand your interpretation correctly, {Du=
j} is an irregular plural with no singular. So like {ngop} with no {jengva&=
#39;}? Plus a special meaning for {ngopmey}? Does that mean talking about o=
ne particular instinct is impossible? Or that a single instinct MUST be exp=
licitly marked as such, eg, {wa' Dujvam yIvoq}? I think that's a pr=
etty big conclusion to take from the gloss of a proverb and an offhand rema=
rk from TKW, which is a cultural rather than linguistic text.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>I think {DujlIj yIvoq} can mean "trust the c=
ollection of your instincts, your general intuitive power" (collective=
) or "trust that one particular instinct that we've been talking a=
bout in this context" (singular), while {DujlIj tIvoq} means "Tru=
st your several instincts" (plural; either=A0as a group or each in its=
turn).=A0In other words, that subtle difference is there only if we look f=
or it.</div>
<div><br></div><div><div>One of the problems with studying Klingon is that =
Okrand's descriptions can be maddeningly imprecise, especially since he=
writes for the general public rather than fellow linguists. That leaves us=
trying to find hidden meaning in his words, even when he's just giving=
a quick and dirty interpretation that we shouldn't consider as normati=
ve.=A0I think the three senses of "instinct" (singular, plural, a=
nd collective) fit nicely into what we've seen in the Klingon canon so =
far. That interpretation, plus the fact that plurals don't have to be e=
xplicitly marked, explains everything we've seen. I think treating {Duj=
} as an inherent plural that has no singular and behaves differently with t=
he {-mey} suffix--while possible--is a rather shocking conclusion to draw f=
rom such little evidence.</div>
<div><br></div><div>bI'reng</div>
</div></div>
--f46d0444715bcd44e904b2b010c6--
--===============8336853692418451717==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============8336853692418451717==--
