[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: nap

[mayql qunenoS]

SuStel:
> Remember that your English translation is just a translation. In your head you
> may be thinking, "I didn't use a plural suffix on this noun because plurals are optional,
> but I mean for this noun to be plural," but your listener doesn't have that information.
> They only have what's in your sentence. In {SuvwI'vaD lo'laHbe' may' nap}, there is no
> indication whether the nouns are meant to be singular or plural, and it doesn't MATTER
> whether they're singular or plural—the sentence expresses the same idea in any combination.

ok, thanks ! I will try to apply this knowledge from now on.

cpt mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:46 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 3/4/2016 4:19 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
>>
>> jIH:
>>>
>>> jaghmeyma' DItojmeH Dujmaj wIchoH 'ej Duj napqu' rur 'oH 'e' wIchav.
>>> in order to deceive our enemies we changed our ship and we achieved
>>> that it resembles a very simple vessel.
>>
>> SuStel:
>>>
>>> jaghpu'ma'
>>> Try leaving off the plural suffix when you don't need it to make clear
>>> the number of the noun.
>>
>>
>> This confuses me a litlle ; ok, yes the chosen plural suffix was
>> wrong, and I should have used the {-pu'}. However if I wrote {jaghma'
>> DItojmeH}, wouldn't that translate to <in order to deceive our enemy>
>> ?
>
>
> Most of the time the plural suffix is entirely optional in Klingon. I try to
> use it only when the distinction between singular and plural NEEDS to be
> made clear. It's only our native language biases that cause us to use it all
> the time.
>
> The only time the plural suffix is required is when you're using the
> construction {Hoch X}. If X is marked as plural, it means "all Xs, taken as
> a whole." If X is not marked as plural, it means "each X, taken
> individually."
>
> Although Okrand doesn't say this, I suspect this also applies with other
> number-like modifiers. I believe it also applies to {HochHom X} and {'op X},
> for instance.
>
>> SuStel:
>>>
>>> SuvwI'vaD lo'laHbe' may' nap
>>> a simple battle is worthless to a warrior
>>> simple battles are worthless to warriors
>>
>>
>> This confuses me ; how is it possible for the {SuvwI'vaD lo'laHbe'
>> may' nap} phrase to be both singular and plural at the same time ?
>
>
> It's not so much that it is both; it's more like it could be either, and the
> distinction isn't important. The statement is true whether the subject and
> object are singular or plural.
>
> Remember that your English translation is just a translation. In your head
> you may be thinking, "I didn't use a plural suffix on this noun because
> plurals are optional, but I mean for this noun to be plural," but your
> listener doesn't have that information. They only have what's in your
> sentence. In {SuvwI'vaD lo'laHbe' may' nap}, there is no indication whether
> the nouns are meant to be singular or plural, and it doesn't MATTER whether
> they're singular or plural—the sentence expresses the same idea in any
> combination.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol