On 4 April 2017 at 18:14, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Without assuming anything, we can be sure with the following:
Not even that.
a) Plural for body parts is -Du'.
That's a given.
b) Ho' follows a)
Only when referring to "idols" as slang, and "teeth" on combs.
c) noq does not.
Only when referring to "nipples" on bottles. But what about if you have nipples on a breastfeeding bra for men? :-D https://www.popsugar.com/moms/Breastfeeding-Devices-Dads-1692110 Those are {noqDu'qoq} but {noqmeyna'}, I suppose.
Sometimes we have to live with nonconsistent rules.
So when in doubt, use statement "a", because that's everything we have until we get other examples that may be different.
(Ho' and DeSqIv might be the exception, or noq and neb might be the exception. It may be mixed all around, with 'uSmey being correct and qammey being wrong - we do not know.)
But the rule in statement "a" applies only when a word is used to refer literally to a body part. Technically, it gives no guidance as to what to do when a body part word is used in another sense. (Like you, I also feel that they should take {-Du'}, but this is based purely on conjecture, not evidence.) The situation is worse than you say. It may be mixed all around, with {'uSmey} being correct in some instances and {'uSDu'} in others, and likewise with {qammey} and {qamDu'}. In-universe, we can propose that {noq} and {neb} were originally body parts, were extended to things resembling those parts, but the latter usage was so common that they were lexicalised with non-body-part meanings (and plural suffix). -- De'vID