[tlhIngan Hol] veQpu' or veQmey ?

[mayqel qunen'oS]

ghunchu'wI':
> What I end up doing in a specific case will depend
> on exactly why I am using that noun and what I want
> to imply about the people I am mentioning.

Could you write an example ?

lieven quoting kgt:
>//Grammatically, even as slang, {Ho’} follows the rules appropriate to its
> literal meaning. Thus, even though it may refer to a person, its plural
> is {Ho’Du’} ("teeth"), making use of the plural suffix for body parts
> ({-Du’}), not {Ho’pu’}, with {-pu’}, the plural suffix for beings
> capable of using language. Similarly, it never takes the possessive
> suffixes associated with beings capable of using language.//

This is wonderful; thank you for reminding me !

But now, lets take this a bit further, and I'm asking everyone here,
who would be willing to answer..

A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to
translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light".

Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use
{qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?

And suppose it's used literally; someone sees kahless being made of
light (he's a god after all..). Would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or
{qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?

And of course, the script writer says, that you *have* to use these
two words in apposition; i.e. no recasting, no rephrasing,

~ m. qunen'oS