To cite some examples from canon: == tuq == jaghpu'ra' bopujmoHtaHvIS, ghur tuqmeyraj quv. Honor will rise in your houses as you bring your enemies to their knees. (Klingon Monopoly) paq'batlh also uses: * tuqlIj - 2 times * tuqmey - 4 times * tuqmaj - 1 time == qorDu' == paq'batlh seems to go both ways with this word: maHvaD lojmItmey tIpoSmoH SoHvaD tuqlIj vInoblaH batlh Hegh qorDu'lI' ghe'torDaq lengbe'meH qorDu'wI' vIQan muyonmoH bortaS neH qorDu'wIj quvmo' jImaghpu' qorDu'wIj quvqa'moHlu'meH jIvang vIneH reH tlhIngan tlhIH 'e' yIqaw pewuv'egh qotar vImuv qorDu'wIj vImuv It could be that there is some distinction, perhaps similar to referring to soldiers as {mangpu'} or {negh} depending on if you are speaking of them as individuals or not. On the other hand, paq'batlh contains quite a few mistakes, so that is another possibility. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 16:59 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] pluralizing groups of beings capable of language This is correct. MEMBERS of the family are capable of using language, but the family itself is not. This is more evident in some families than others... It's pretty obvious in MY family, anyway. charghwI' vaghnerya'ngan rInpa' bomnIS be''a' pI'. On Jan 7, 2020, at 10:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Just to make certain.. The way I understand it is, that when we pluralize a group of beings capable of language, then we use {-mey}. For example, we'll say {qorDu'mey} for "families", and not {qorDu'pu'}. Right ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org