[tlhIngan Hol] {DeSqIv} and {noq}

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Wed Apr 5 00:28:13 PDT 2017

On 4 April 2017 at 18:14, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> Without assuming anything, we can be sure with the following:

Not even that.

> a) Plural for body parts is -Du'.

That's a given.

> b) Ho' follows a)

Only when referring to "idols" as slang, and "teeth" on combs.

> c) noq does not.

Only when referring to "nipples" on bottles.

But what about if you have nipples on a breastfeeding bra for men? :-D

Those are {noqDu'qoq} but {noqmeyna'}, I suppose.

> Sometimes we have to live with nonconsistent rules.
> So when in doubt, use statement "a", because that's everything we have until
> we get other examples that may be different.
> (Ho' and DeSqIv might be the exception, or noq and neb might be the
> exception. It may be mixed all around, with 'uSmey being correct and qammey
> being wrong - we do not know.)

But the rule in statement "a" applies only when a word is used to
refer literally to a body part. Technically, it gives no guidance as
to what to do when a body part word is used in another sense. (Like
you, I also feel that they should take {-Du'}, but this is based
purely on conjecture, not evidence.)

The situation is worse than you say. It may be mixed all around, with
{'uSmey} being correct in some instances and {'uSDu'} in others, and
likewise with {qammey} and {qamDu'}.

In-universe, we can propose that {noq} and {neb} were originally body
parts, were extended to things resembling those parts, but the latter
usage was so common that they were lexicalised with non-body-part
meanings (and plural suffix).


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list