[tlhIngan Hol] mutpu' or mutmey ?

[SuStel]

On 12/29/2016 10:05 AM, Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:52 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     /A *mut* is not a thing capable of using language. Its members
>     are, but it is not. It is an abstraction./
>
> I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Metaphorically, we 
> treat groups as possessing the attributes of language users all the time.
>
>  The Borg Collective express outrage at latest Star Trek film.
>
> Barbers Union presses for more Bolians in new Trek series.
>
> Readers of Schoen's fiction ask if elephants can really talk.
>
> Translate any of the above or similar statements into Klingon and the 
> group is clearly understood to be made up of language users and no one 
> would blink twice at the figurative use of extending that attribute to 
> the group.

Voragh has just posted some evidence supporting my statement. 
/paq'batlh/ has *qorDu'wIj* instead of **qorDu'wI'*. /paq'batlh/, KGT, 
and Klingon Monopoly have *tuqlIj* and *tuqmaj* and *tuqmey *and even 
*tuqmeyraj *instead of **tuqlI'* and **tuqma'* and *tuqpu'***and 
**tuqpu'ra'**.*

We also recently got the word *Dojmey*/mass, masses, multitude/ which is 
never **Dojpu',* even when referring only to people, though in this case 
it may be that the word *Doj* is inherently gendered as a thing instead 
of a being capable of using language, just as table legs and teapot 
handles are gendered as body parts instead of things.

This reminds me of the usage difference between British and American 
English. The British say "my family are" or "the company are" while 
Americans say "my family is" or "the company is."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161229/433e74da/attachment-0017.htm>