On 4 April 2017 at 10:36, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 04.04.2017 um 09:45 schrieb De'vID:
Previously, some people have taken this to imply that body parts were a noun class in Klingon, and that body part words take the {-Du'} suffix even when not referring to a body part.
Yes, I think KGT is clear on this even mentioneing the term "rule".
Where does it mention this "rule"?
(a side note: We talked about something similar at qepHom'a', when Okrand mentioned a term used in movie production, lamps standing on a "foot", and people would talk about "foots" instead of "feet". I just don't remember the end of the discussion. I think we agreed on saying {De' jengva'mey}, altough the plural of jengva' is ngop.)
According to my notes, the opposite: he apparently agreed with you that the plural is {De' ngop}, but was noncommittal about the general case (of whether the plural of a compound noun pluralises according to the plural of the main noun).
Or does each body part word work differently when used to refer to a non-body-part in the plural, and it's just something you have to memorise?
That would not be wrong to do, as it is based on something we are told. {DeSqIvSu' ghaj nevDagh} {noqmey ghaj ghu balmey}
Sure, but that's not useful as it doesn't answer what to do about a case we don't have canon for: {raS 'uSDu'} or {raS 'uSmey} (assuming a {raS} has {'uS})? For that matter, are the {'uSHey} on a Star Wars AT-AT (the "walker" legged vehicles) {'uSDu'} or {'uSmey}?
Incidentally, the online version of the qep'a' booklet where {noq} was given seems to have disappeared:
I do. I'll send it offlist to you.
Danke. I wish the KLI URLs are more permanent, though. -- De'vID