I am working with Dr. Okrand on correcting errors in the paq'batlh for a 2nd edition,
buy'qu' ngop! There's so much material in that book; an updated edition (and the comments that arise from it) could be a splendid regerence. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:18:28 AM To: tlhIngan-Hol Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] pluralizing groups of beings capable of language On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 17:26, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se<mailto:felixm@kth.se>> wrote: == 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. I am working with Dr. Okrand on correcting errors in the paq'batlh for a 2nd edition, and I can confirm that {qorDu'lI'} and {qorDu'wI'} are errors and will be fixed to {qorDu'lIj} and {qorDu'wIj}. Here's the relevant quote: --- begin quote --- {qorDu'} should be considered something that is not capable of language (though its individual members, of course, might be... and normally are). --- end quote --- -- De'vID