On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

 

A mut is not a thing capable of using language. Its members are, but it is not. It is an abstraction.

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Metaphorically, we treat groups as possessing the attributes of language users all the time. 

 The Borg Collective express outrage at latest Star Trek film.

Barbers Union presses for more Bolians in new Trek series.

Readers of Schoen's fiction ask if elephants can really talk.

Translate any of the above or similar statements into Klingon and the group is clearly understood to be made up of language users and no one would blink twice at the figurative use of extending that attribute to the group.

Voragh has just posted some evidence supporting my statement. paq'batlh has qorDu'wIj instead of *qorDu'wI'. paq'batlh, KGT, and Klingon Monopoly have tuqlIj and tuqmaj and tuqmey and even tuqmeyraj instead of *tuqlI' and *tuqma' and tuqpu' and *tuqpu'ra'.

We also recently got the word Dojmey mass, masses, multitude which is never *Dojpu', even when referring only to people, though in this case it may be that the word Doj is inherently gendered as a thing instead of a being capable of using language, just as table legs and teapot handles are gendered as body parts instead of things.

This reminds me of the usage difference between British and American English. The British say "my family are" or "the company are" while Americans say "my family is" or "the company is."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name