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> 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
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org