[tlhIngan Hol] {DeSqIv} and {noq}

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Tue Apr 4 02:58:18 PDT 2017

On 4 April 2017 at 11:41, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:30 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"?
> 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'}"

But the term "rule" here is not referring to a rule about what to do
when you use a word which is normally a body part to refer to a
non-body-part. It's referring to the rule (TKD 3.3.2) that body part
nouns take the {-Du'} plural suffix (when they are used literally).

> 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.

But the point is that there is no existing rule. It's implied that
when body part words are used with slang meanings, or to refer to
things which are analogous to body parts, they remain grammatically
body parts. People assumed a rule based on a few examples, but it now
seems that we have about the same number of counterexamples.


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list