<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 04:52, Alan Anderson <<a href="mailto:qunchuy@alcaco.net">qunchuy@alcaco.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:49 PM Daniel Dadap <<a href="mailto:daniel@dadap.net" target="_blank">daniel@dadap.net</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
What do you all think about {'oH} versus {ghaH}? Has Maltz ever said anything to point us more strongly towards one interpretation or the other, with regards to whether {ghaH} might apply to beings incapable of language?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>On the old MSN expert forum, Marc Okrand said:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">the question {yIH nuq?} "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel to the statement {yIH 'oH} "It is a tribble" </blockquote><div><br>[See <a href="http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt" target="_blank">http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt</a> for the full text of his message.]</div><br>A tribble is an animate being. It gets the pronouns {'oH} and {nuq}, not {ghaH} and {'Iv}.<br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But Klingons hate tribbles, so it might just be the case that tribbles are {'oH} whereas the beloved pet targ gets {ghaH}. ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>While it's true that TKD 5.1 does not explicitly state that the distinction between {ghaH} and {'oH} is the same as that between {chaH} and {bIH}, the arrangement of the table strongly suggests that this is the case:</div><div><pre class="gmail-a-b-r-La" style="font-family:"Courier New",Courier,monospace,arial,sans-serif;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;white-space:pre-wrap;word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px"> {jIH} I, me {maH} we, us
{SoH} you {tlhIH} you (plural)
{ghaH} he/she, him/her {chaH} they, them
{'oH} it {bIH} they, them
{'e'} that
{net} that</pre></div><div><br></div><div>It's a fairly obvious interpretation that the right column shows the plural corresponding to the left column. The sentence immediately following this table is: "The pronoun {chaH} they is used when it refers to a group of beings capable of using language; otherwise, {bIH} they is used." It seems to me that Okrand mentions this only because "they" is used for both in English and needed clarification. If the distinction between {ghaH} and {'oH} is in a different place than that between {chaH} and {bIH}, I'd have expected this to be mentioned. (However, the lack of mention of such a difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist, since TKD is meant to be a brief grammatical sketch.)</div><div><br></div><div>In HolQeD 10:4, Okrand discusses birds that talk. He makes a point of saying that the usual suffix for birds is {-mey}, but that some Klingons use {-pu'} for birds which mimick speech. He does not mention whether they take {'oH} or {ghaH}, which could be interpreted either way. That is, it might be that the distinction between {'oH} and {ghaH} is so obviously the same as between {-mey} and {-pu'} as to be not worth mentioning (and hence those Klingons who use {-pu'} would use {ghaH}, and those who use {-mey} would use {'oH}). Or it might be that all animals always take {'oH} (or always take {ghaH}), and this doesn't change regardless of whether they talk. But in the latter case, the fact that a {yIH} is referred to using {'oH} implies that all animals are {'oH}. So in either interpretation, {'oH} is used for animals which don't talk. What's left open is whether those Klingons who use {-pu'} for talking birds would also use {ghaH}/{chaH} for them.</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">De'vID</div></div></div>