Tom, et al,
Actually as Cici already noted, "Indians" is the correct plural
form. You can't say "3 Indian" but must say "3 Indians." In English
there are two forms of nouns, viz. countable and non-countable. The
former are pluralized with a final "s" and the latter are often
pluralized by adding an "s" to their classifier. I have taught ESL a
number of times over the years and this was always the hardest thing
for people to learn besides prepositions. For, example words like
milk, and chalk are non-countable. If you want to pluralize them you
must use pluralized classifiers such as "JUGS/CUPS/BOTTLES etc. of
milk" and "PIECES/BOXES of chalk." Notice in these instances the
classifiers are pluralized while milk and chalk remained unaltered.
Keep in mind Hmong has classifiers too, such as "lub, tus, rab, daim,
txoj," etc. Then there are some words that are inherently plural in
nature. For example, the word "people" is already plural meaning
"haiv neeg." Interestingly enough, the word "haiv neeg" in Hmong is
also plural in nature, so you don't need to use "cov" to pluralize it.
But to make things confusing, the word "people" can be pluralized to
"peoples" if you are talking about mulitiple groups of people. So,
saying the "people of Laos" is different from saying "the peoples of
Laos." The former refers to the people of Laos collectively as a
whole--including Lao, Hmong, Mien, Tai Dam, etc. This groups them all
into one group. The latter however, refers to the various groups
individually, indicating there are various groups of people in Laos,
including Hmong, Mien, etc. Really then, the term "peoples" is pretty
much the same as saying "nationalities." Therefore, saying "the
peoples of Laos are many" would be about the same as saying "the
nationalities of Laos are many." I am wondering now about Hmong.
While "people" can be translated as "haiv neeg," "peoples" would have
to be translated as "ntau haiv neeg" or "cov haiv neeg" but I don't
think that is acceptable in Hmong. Is it? Do any of you really
care?:)
Anyway, now you can see why I made a poor ESL teacher: I don't know
when to shut up. I just pity people who have to learn English as a
second language--ouch!!
Xeng
Tou, just take that Hmong can be as Indian. 1,2,3 or 4 Indian not
Indians. If you put the "s" then the teahcer will mark the paragraph
wrong. A simple rule is Hmong can be the same as Indian. I thing we
should take that.
Tom,
Post by Tou LyIf you look at the Hmong language, you'll notice that in many cases,
we use the same word for both singular and plural. For example, when
refering to one toe- you say "tug ntiv taw" and when refering to all
ten toes (or more) you say "cov ntiv taw." When refering to peb cov
Hmoob, it's the same thing, so when translated into English I feel it
should be the same way, Hmong for both singular and plural. In the
same way, I've never seen Chinese plural written Chineses. :)
However I realize that it's awkward with the English language, so when
refering to more than one Hmong I always say Hmong people. Hope that
helps a little. That's just my perspective.
Cici,
I take on your logic also, that's why I use Hmong for both singular
and plural.
I wouldn't mind hearing more input from other people on the board so
as to get a general concesus. I was debating with a few guys and girls
the other day on what should be the plural form of Hmong in English
and they wanted to use "Hmongs" 'cause it fits more into the rules of
English grammar. But of course little do they know that there are lots
of exceptions in this particular language, as with many languages
also, just like what Xeng Yang said. I find using "Hmongs" with the
"gz" sounding not neat.
Tou Ly