<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
jatlhpu' charghwI':<br>
> Someone who dearly loves their pair of<br>
> parrots may use {-pu’}, but everyone,<br>
> including the speaker knows that it’s<br>
> grammatically wrong.<br>
<br>
I'm on my phone and so will address the rest of what you say when I can get onto a more practical keyboard, but this one point isn't canonically supported. What Okrand says is nothing more than that there's a split in usage on such terms, and that it's grammatically
wrong for Maltz's idiolect. I quote:<br>
<br>
"The plural suffix for birds is usually {-mey}, the general plural suffix, as would be expected. There is a difference of opinion, however, about which plural suffix to use for a few birds capable of mimicking speech, such as the {vIlInHoD} and the {qaryoq}
(and the larger {qaryoq'a'}), with some Klingons using {-mey} but others preferring {-pu'}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Maltz is a member of the former camp; he said he was never able to engage a {qaryoq} in a conversation that
made any sense." (HQ 10:4, p5)<br>
<br>
Nowhere is it said that {-pu'} is considered ungrammatical within the lects of those who do use it for such birds.<br>
<br>
QeS 'utlh<br>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, 19 May 2019 8:33:08 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> tlhingan-hol@kli.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [tlhIngan Hol] veQpu' or veQmey ?</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The thing to keep in mind is that in Klingon, the {wIj/wI’} and {pu’/Du’/mey} determination is like linguistic gender. It’s not a literal comment as to whether a specific entity is a body part or capable of language. It is arbitrary and usually
fits the general guideline of body part/language capable/other. That doesn’t mean every noun always lives up to the guideline.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you have a noun and you don’t know its typical gender, use the guideline, but if you have a noun with an established gender, like De’wI’mey, which Okrand has given us, you don’t abandon the known gender because of a specific instance. It doesn’t matter
if a specific entity is assigned to a noun that doesn’t fit the guideline, that noun keeps the known gender. <br>
<br>
Someone who dearly loves their pair of parrots may use {-pu’}, but everyone, including the speaker knows that it’s grammatically wrong. <br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone. <br>
<div>charghwI’</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On May 17, 2019, at 2:18 AM, Rhona Fenwick <<a href="mailto:qeslagh@hotmail.com">qeslagh@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>ghItlhpu' mayqel:</div>
> A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to<br>
<div>
<div class="x_BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="x_PlainText">> translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light".<br>
> Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use<br>
> {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?</div>
<div class="x_PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="x_PlainText">Others have given good canon-based answers that basically show the most common practice among Klingons is to use the suffixes grammatically appropriate to the literal meaning of the noun - so,
<b>tamghaywIj</b> - but that context or individual preference may play a part. Personally,
<i>a priori</i> I'd prefer <b>tamghaywIj</b>.<br>
</div>
<div class="x_PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="x_PlainText">With that said, context might send me in the other direction if necessary. For instance, in my translation of Shota Rustaveli's
<i>The Man in the Panther Skin</i>, for instance, I've run up against this problem hard. In Rustaveli's original poem, formulaic metaphors are extremely common, but often obtuse to the point of incomprehensibility: Georgian
<span><i>sada indoni brol-vardsa / sarven gišrisa sarita</i> literally means </span>
<span>"where the Indians surround the crystal and rose with arbour of jet"</span>, but it's actually a complex metaphor for the beauty of Avtandil's beloved Tinatin. Because this happens so very often in the text, I decided to break with the more common practice
and help the reader out by occasionally making use of prescriptively "incorrect" affixes as a device to signal some of these metaphors overtly.
<i>lomo</i> "o (my) lion!" (referring to Avtandil) I rendered in one place as <b>
'o 'IwwI'</b> "o my blood!", and in another place I rendered "narcissuses" (referring to Tinatin's eyes) as
<b>SeparDu'Daj</b> "her <i>separ</i>-stones". However, this practice was a contextual decision made for this specific text and for very specific reasons. I wouldn't counsel a learner to do so as a matter of course.<br>
</div>
<div class="x_PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="x_PlainText">QeS 'utlh<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>