<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 22:23, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>So lemme get this straight. You guys think that <b>ghaH</b> is
for any singular thing the speaker believes can communicate in
some way, <b>'oH</b> is for any singular thing the speaker
believes cannot communicate in any way, <b>chaH</b> is for plural
beings capable of using language regardless of what you think
about them, and <b>bIH</b> is for plural things not capable of
using languages regardless of what you thinking about them. Except
at night, on Tuesday, of course.</p></div></blockquote><div>Well, I don't. I think the {'oH}/{bIH} distinction is exactly the same as the {ghaH}/{chaH} one. I don't see how the table in TKD 5.1 can be interpreted in any other way. It's obviously arranged with the singular forms in one column and their corresponding plurals in the other. The absence of a comment is, I think, evidence, that the obvious interpretation is right, as it would be notable (danger! danger!) otherwise. </div><div><br></div><div>It's also pretty clear that Okrand intended Klingon noun classes to be split along language-using-beings, body parts, and other things. The {-rup}/{-beH} distinction is an exception, and was invented to turn a line of dialogue originally spoken in English into Klingon. He's barely used or mentioned it since its invention. When a word (or a homophone) is used for both a body part and a non-body-part ({Ho'}, or {DeSqIv}), he's been careful to point out which plural suffix it uses. He's used {-pu'} on {latlh} when it refers to beings.</div><div><br></div><div>What other people have been getting at is what happens if the speaker isn't sure whether the being uses language or not. The "rules" may say that this and that applies to language-using beings or not regardless of what you think about them. But the speaker necessarily has to judge whether the thing or being they're talking about uses language or not. In most cases (Humans, Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons on one side, tribbles, rocks, starships, on the other), it's clear. But what about {qaryoq'a'} or {vIlInHoD}? Maltz tells us that the usual plural is {-mey}, but some speakers prefer {-pu'}. He leaves unstated whether to use {'oH} or {ghaH}, but it seems obvious to me that those who use {-mey} would use {'oH}, and those who use {-pu'} would use {ghaH}. </div><div><br></div><div>Okrand has given us rules. He's also pointed out that some people interpret the rules differently. That's how rules actually work in real life. Nothing surprising here.</div><div><br></div><div>Now, I wonder, are there any instances in Star Trek where it's ambiguous whether something is a body part? For example, a creature with detachable autonomous limbs? Or what about a space amoeba? Are its internal organelles (or whatever distinguishable parts it has) body parts? What if they're made of identifiable things, like half-digested planets? Does the space amoeba have internal {yuQmey} or {yuQDu'}?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>You don't think that Okrand just got tired of saying "capable of
using language" and shortened it to "communicate"?</p></div>
</blockquote></div>I think he's referring to slightly differently things, though. In TKD, when he talks about beings "capable of language", he's laying down the rules for what a grammar book would say. When he has subsequently explained that it's about whether the speaker believes something can communicate or not, he's talking about how people interpret the rules.<br clear="all"><div><br></div><div>Also, qurgh's observation from qep'a' 2015 is an example of what I mean when I say that {HolQeD} is a source of canon (when Okrand's words are relayed through other people):</div><div><br></div><div>> (qurgh, 11/10/2015): I had a conversation with Marc about 'oH and ghaH and animals when I was at the qepHom. He said that if you (the speaker) believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's a ghaH, if you don't believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's 'oH. It's down the personal beliefs of the speaker, not a set formula.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that some people wouldn't consider this to be authoritative, since it's hearsay, like hearsay about things Okrand has said at performances of the Washington Shakespeare Company and whatnot. But if this same statement had appeared in HolQeD, it would (probably) be considered a canon interpretation of how to decide between using {'oH} and {ghaH} by most.</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">De'vID</div></div></div>