Am 16.05.2019 um 11:09 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
I start by writing {veQ Human}, but as the passage continues, I choose occasionally to write {veQ} only.
I would say {Human veQ} parallel to {tlhIngan SuvwI'} or {verengan Ha'DIbaH}
I realize, that perhaps in english you wouldn't pluralize the "trash"; but humor me, because the issue here isn't *this* particular example.
That's actually a good question. I don't know any canon examples for {veQ} confirming this, but I guess it's not countable, such as {bIQ}.
The issue here, is "if you needed to pluralize a noun, which refers to people, but that noun wasn't capable of language, would you use {-pu'} or {-mey}" ?
I would base this on the explanation in KGT, p. 152, with the word {Ho'} which is a slang term for "hero", but means "tooth: // Grammatically, even as slang, {Ho’} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Thus, even though it may refer to a person, its plural is {Ho’Du’} ("teeth"), making use of the plural suffix for body parts ({-Du’}), not {Ho’pu’}, with {-pu’}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Similarly, it never takes the possessive suffixes associated with beings capable of using language. // -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ST5