<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree with ghunchu’wI’: ?<b>julwIj</b> is probably okay. But using an inanimate possessive suffix on an inherently speech-capable noun is not:<br>
<br>
(TKD 25): It is grammatically correct to use the regular possessive suffixes with nouns referring to beings capable of speech (as in
<b>puqlIj</b> <i>your child</i>), but such constructions are considered derogatory;
<b>joHwIj</b> for <i>my lord</i> borders on taboo.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">(KGT 190): Addressing <i>my Lord</i> or
<i>my Lady</i> as <b>joHwIj</b> rather than <b>joHwI'</b> is insulting indeed, since it implies that
<i>my Lord</i> or <i>my Lady</i> is a lower order of being. Similarly, a group of heads of households would probably not appreciate being referred to as
<b>joHDu'</b>, since that would be the appropriate way to say <i>Lords</i> or <i>
Ladies</i> only if they were body parts. The only thing worse would be combining mispronunciation with grammatical blundering, such as by saying
<b>joQDu'wIj</b> (<i>my ribs</i>) ... when <b>joHpu'wI'</b> (<i>my Lords</i>, <i>
my Ladies</i>) is intended. Mistakes of this kind are simply not tolerated and there are no recorded instances of anyone living long enough to repeat the offense.<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Two more examples like
</span><b>DeSqIvDu'</b> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">(KGT 80): The ends [of a pigment stick] (sometimes referred to as the
<b>nItlhpachDu' </b>[literally, <i>fingernails</i>])<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">(KGT 152): Grammatically, even as slang,
<b>Ho' </b>follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Thus, even though it may refer to a person, its plural is
<b>Ho'Du' </b>(<i>teeth</i>), making use of the plural suffix for body parts (-<b>Du'</b>), not
<b>Ho'pu'</b>, with -<b>pu'</b>, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language.<br>
<br>
Also <b>jIb Ho'Du' </b><i>comb</i> (literally <i>hair teeth</i>) from TalkNow!</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">--Voragh<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:4.0pt">On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Daniel Dadap <<a href="mailto:daniel@dadap.net" target="_blank">daniel@dadap.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:4.0pt">Oh, another question that came up while doing this one: what grammatical gender does something not capable of language take when one wants to express that a being capable of language is metaphorically that thing?
For example, to say “you are my sun”, should it be julwIj SoH, or julwI' SoH?<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:4.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:4.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Alan Anderson<br>
</span>Canon is not consistent enough to provide a firm rule, but the handles called <b>DeSqIvDu'</b> <i>elbows</i> on a <b>nevDagh</b> cooking pot get the "body part" plural. I tend to go with the idea that the word itself usually provides the category, and
here I would say <b>julwIj</b>. You're not actually referring to a speech-capable sun, so I don't think using the non-speech-capable possessive carries a derogatory implication.<br>
<br>
-- ghunchu'wI'<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>