[tlhIngan Hol] {DeSqIv} and {noq}

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Tue Apr 4 02:30:35 PDT 2017


On 4 April 2017 at 10:36, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 04.04.2017 um 09:45 schrieb De'vID:
>>
>> Previously, some people have taken this to imply that body parts were
>> a noun class in Klingon, and that body part words take the {-Du'}
>> suffix even when not referring to a body part.
>
> Yes, I think KGT is clear on this even mentioneing the term "rule".

Where does it mention this "rule"?

> (a side note: We talked about something similar at qepHom'a', when Okrand
> mentioned a term used in movie production, lamps standing on a "foot", and
> people would talk about "foots" instead of "feet". I just don't remember the
> end of the discussion. I think we agreed on saying {De' jengva'mey}, altough
> the plural of jengva' is ngop.)

According to my notes, the opposite: he apparently agreed with you
that the plural is {De' ngop}, but was noncommittal about the general
case (of whether the plural of a compound noun pluralises according to
the plural of the main noun).

>> Or does each body
>> part word work differently when used to refer to a non-body-part in
>> the plural, and it's just something you have to memorise?
>
> That would not be wrong to do, as it is based on something we are told.
> {DeSqIvSu' ghaj nevDagh}
> {noqmey ghaj ghu balmey}

Sure, but that's not useful as it doesn't answer what to do about a
case we don't have canon for: {raS 'uSDu'} or {raS 'uSmey} (assuming a
{raS} has {'uS})? For that matter, are the {'uSHey} on a Star Wars
AT-AT (the "walker" legged vehicles) {'uSDu'} or {'uSmey}?

>> Incidentally, the online version of the qep'a' booklet where {noq} was
>> given seems to have disappeared:
>
>
> I do. I'll send it offlist to you.

Danke.

I wish the KLI URLs are more permanent, though.

-- 
De'vID


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list