[tlhIngan Hol] pluralizing epithets

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Sep 27 07:47:31 PDT 2019


On 9/27/2019 10:03 AM, Hugh Son puqloD wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2019, at 07:55, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/2019 7:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>>> Since we don't know, what exactly a {petaQ} or a {yIntagh} is, I know
>>> that probably there's no answer.
>>>
>>> But I wonder..
>>>
>>> How would you pluralize the {petaQ}, {yIntagh}, {toDSaH}, etc ?
>>>
>>> Would you use {-pu'} or {-mey} ?
>>
>> /paq'batlh/ has *petaQmey,* referring to people.
>>
>
> But what if they were just scattered all about? Within the context of 
> the paq'batlh verse, I don’t think such a reading is excluded:
>
> nItlhejbogh petaQmey
>    tInuD chaHvaD
>    nIb yan wIjwI' jan je

There's also zero evidence that the beings referred to are scattered 
about, and the "assembled warriors" are "at your side," addressing 
Molor. Impossible to be scattered? No, but not very likely either. 
Almost any plural could be imagined to be "scattered" if you try hard 
enough.

What this quote doesn't do is prove that you /must/ insult the *petaQ* 
you're addressing by referring to them as things; it just seems that 
Molor happens to do so. It seems obvious that insulting someone with 
*petaQ* might lead you to further insult them by implying they're things 
instead of people, so saying *petaQmey* instead of *petaQpu'* might be 
common, but we have no data to support that.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190927/52f9915c/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list