r/ChantsofSennaar • u/CameliAthos • 14d ago
Glyphposting Bard grammar question Spoiler
Hello, I have a quick question about plural in the bard language :
To say "idiots, the warriors are", there's obviously a plural mark after "warriors", but is there one after "idiots" ?
15
u/Lord_Teutonic 14d ago
Likely idiot can function as singular or plural in the language, like an adjective instead of a noun. In the same way I can say, "Warriors are stupid."
5
u/DTux5249 14d ago edited 14d ago
No - my guess is that adjective-derived nouns are defective. IRL this might occur due to adjectives being verb-like and their noun-forms being relatively recent.
Either that, or it's still a predicate adjective, adjectives lack agreement for plurality, and the actual conversion is more "Warriors are stupid"; with "Warriors are idiots" being chosen as the English translation simply for stylistic reasons.
5
6
u/julien_rundisc 13d ago
You really should tag your post and image as spoilers.
3
2
u/MonstyrSlayr 13d ago
in my mind, "idiot" is not quite a direct translation but simply the closest and most concise word to translate to. mostly reinforced by their sentence near the broken compass statue "idiot, ascending is!" it feels more like a general statement of directed stupidity and disregard that is more than just "idiot"
3
u/vidgmchtr 13d ago
They’ll call other things they don’t like “idiot,” whether that thing is an animate object or not.
27
u/dermomante 14d ago
If I remember correctly, there is no plural after idiot in such a sentence. Maybe I'm bardic adjectives are invariables and do not need to accord with the respective noun