pluralizing groups of beings capable of language
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
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
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<mailto: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<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 17:26, Felix Malmenbeck <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
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
Apparently the ability to use language is important for individuals, not groups. For example: qorDu'wIj quvmo' jImaghpu' qorDu'wIj quvqa'moHlu'meH jIvang vIneH The reason of my betrayal was my family honor, I want to restore this honor. (PB) Note {qorDu’wIj} not *{qorDu’wI’}. Another example: jonlu'meH wo'maj pop tIn law' Hoch tIn puS Our Empire's highest bounty has been placed on his head. (ST5 notes) Note {wo’maj} not *{wo’ma’}. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons ________________________________________________________________________ From: mayqel qunen'oS 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 ?
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Felix Malmenbeck -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
Will Martin