ghunchu'wI':
What I end up doing in a specific case will depend on exactly why I am using that noun and what I want to imply about the people I am mentioning.
Could you write an example ? lieven quoting kgt:
//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.//
This is wonderful; thank you for reminding me ! But now, lets take this a bit further, and I'm asking everyone here, who would be willing to answer.. A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light". Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ? And suppose it's used literally; someone sees kahless being made of light (he's a god after all..). Would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ? And of course, the script writer says, that you *have* to use these two words in apposition; i.e. no recasting, no rephrasing, ~ m. qunen'oS