[tlhIngan Hol] {DeSqIv} and {noq}

Lieven levinius at gmx.de
Tue Apr 4 02:41:30 PDT 2017


Am 04.04.2017 um 11:30 schrieb De'vID:
>> Yes, I think KGT is clear on this even mentioneing the term "rule".
>
> Where does it mention this "rule"?

It's not very clear, I just said that KGT mentions the word "rule", 
without explicitley saying which one, or that is, referring to what is 
said in TKD:

"Even as slang, {Ho'} follows the rules appropriate to its literal 
meaning. Even though referring to a person, its plural is {Ho'Du'}"

> According to my notes, the opposite: he apparently agreed with you
> that the plural is {De' ngop}

Good you have those notes :-)

> 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}?

I am among those who prefer using body part suffixes with body parts, no 
matter where. After I had written that mesage this morning, I also 
thought about {raS 'uSDu'}, and it hurts to say {'uSmey}; It just 
doesn't fit to what we know.

I therefore regard those new words as homonyms, that Okrand may explain 
as a derived word from an original meaning, that now has become common 
usage.

As long as we don't get any further information, we should stick to the 
existing rules, except for these two words we just got.


-- 
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list