I just noticed something odd. Recently, we were given the noun {noq}, meaning both nipple (anatomy) and nipple (like on a bottle). The plural is {noqDu'} when referring to a body part, and {noqmey} when referring to bottles. In KGT, we were told this about {DeSqIv}: <A {bargh} is probably the most frequently used pot. It is rather large and has a flattened bottom. The smaller {nevDagh} is characterized by its V-shaped handles, termed {DeSqIvDu'} ("elbows"; note that {-Du'}, the plural suffix for body parts, is used here even though the handles are not literally body parts).> Previously, some people have taken this to imply that body parts were a noun class in Klingon, and that body part words take the {-Du'} suffix even when not referring to a body part. But {noq} seems to contradict this. What's going on here? Is one or the other of {noq} or {DeSqIv} an exception to the rule, and if so, what's the rule? Or does each body part word work differently when used to refer to a non-body-part in the plural, and it's just something you have to memorise? Incidentally, the online version of the qep'a' booklet where {noq} was given seems to have disappeared: http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-wejdich/new-words/ Does anyone have a copy of it? -- De'vID
Am 04.04.2017 um 09:45 schrieb De'vID:
I just noticed something odd.
The same was given for the word {neb}, which is {nebDu'} in anatomy and {nebmey} on rockets.
In KGT, we were told this about {DeSqIv}:
Yes, KGT also says about the slang term {Ho'} for "hero": Even as slang, {Ho'} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Even though referring to a person, its plural is {Ho'Du'} Do we have any other examples of this kind?
Previously, some people have taken this to imply that body parts were a noun class in Klingon, and that body part words take the {-Du'} suffix even when not referring to a body part.
Yes, I think KGT is clear on this even mentioneing the term "rule".
But {noq} seems to contradict this. What's going on here? Is one or the other of {noq} or {DeSqIv} an exception to the rule, and if so, what's the rule?
I usually base the rules on the statistical majority of examples, but in this case, I have two examples this way, two the other way. I suggest following the "basic rule" exmplained in KGT and see these two words as exceptions or homonyms you just have to memorize. (out of the game: KGT was written 20 years ago, so maybe Okrand just didn't remember what he wrote their precisely - or he did intentionally?) (a side note: We talked about something similar at qepHom'a', when Okrand mentioned a term used in movie production, lamps standing on a "foot", and people would talk about "foots" instead of "feet". I just don't remember the end of the discussion. I think we agreed on saying {De' jengva'mey}, altough the plural of jengva' is ngop.)
Or does each body part word work differently when used to refer to a non-body-part in the plural, and it's just something you have to memorise?
That would not be wrong to do, as it is based on something we are told. {DeSqIvSu' ghaj nevDagh} {noqmey ghaj ghu balmey}
Incidentally, the online version of the qep'a' booklet where {noq} was given seems to have disappeared:
I do. I'll send it offlist to you. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/BodyParts
On 4 April 2017 at 10:36, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 04.04.2017 um 09:45 schrieb De'vID:
Previously, some people have taken this to imply that body parts were a noun class in Klingon, and that body part words take the {-Du'} suffix even when not referring to a body part.
Yes, I think KGT is clear on this even mentioneing the term "rule".
Where does it mention this "rule"?
(a side note: We talked about something similar at qepHom'a', when Okrand mentioned a term used in movie production, lamps standing on a "foot", and people would talk about "foots" instead of "feet". I just don't remember the end of the discussion. I think we agreed on saying {De' jengva'mey}, altough the plural of jengva' is ngop.)
According to my notes, the opposite: he apparently agreed with you that the plural is {De' ngop}, but was noncommittal about the general case (of whether the plural of a compound noun pluralises according to the plural of the main noun).
Or does each body part word work differently when used to refer to a non-body-part in the plural, and it's just something you have to memorise?
That would not be wrong to do, as it is based on something we are told. {DeSqIvSu' ghaj nevDagh} {noqmey ghaj ghu balmey}
Sure, but that's not useful as it doesn't answer what to do about a case we don't have canon for: {raS 'uSDu'} or {raS 'uSmey} (assuming a {raS} has {'uS})? For that matter, are the {'uSHey} on a Star Wars AT-AT (the "walker" legged vehicles) {'uSDu'} or {'uSmey}?
Incidentally, the online version of the qep'a' booklet where {noq} was given seems to have disappeared:
I do. I'll send it offlist to you.
Danke. I wish the KLI URLs are more permanent, though. -- De'vID
Am 04.04.2017 um 11:30 schrieb De'vID:
Yes, I think KGT is clear on this even mentioneing the term "rule".
Where does it mention this "rule"?
It's not very clear, I just said that KGT mentions the word "rule", without explicitley saying which one, or that is, referring to what is said in TKD: "Even as slang, {Ho'} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Even though referring to a person, its plural is {Ho'Du'}"
According to my notes, the opposite: he apparently agreed with you that the plural is {De' ngop}
Good you have those notes :-)
Sure, but that's not useful as it doesn't answer what to do about a case we don't have canon for: {raS 'uSDu'} or {raS 'uSmey} (assuming a {raS} has {'uS})? For that matter, are the {'uSHey} on a Star Wars AT-AT (the "walker" legged vehicles) {'uSDu'} or {'uSmey}?
I am among those who prefer using body part suffixes with body parts, no matter where. After I had written that mesage this morning, I also thought about {raS 'uSDu'}, and it hurts to say {'uSmey}; It just doesn't fit to what we know. I therefore regard those new words as homonyms, that Okrand may explain as a derived word from an original meaning, that now has become common usage. As long as we don't get any further information, we should stick to the existing rules, except for these two words we just got. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh
On 4 April 2017 at 11:41, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 04.04.2017 um 11:30 schrieb De'vID:
Previously, some people have taken this to imply that body parts were a noun class in Klingon, and that body part words take the {-Du'} suffix even when not referring to a body part.
Yes, I think KGT is clear on this even mentioneing the term "rule".
Where does it mention this "rule"?
It's not very clear, I just said that KGT mentions the word "rule", without explicitley saying which one, or that is, referring to what is said in TKD:
"Even as slang, {Ho'} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Even though referring to a person, its plural is {Ho'Du'}"
But the term "rule" here is not referring to a rule about what to do when you use a word which is normally a body part to refer to a non-body-part. It's referring to the rule (TKD 3.3.2) that body part nouns take the {-Du'} plural suffix (when they are used literally).
I am among those who prefer using body part suffixes with body parts, no matter where. After I had written that mesage this morning, I also thought about {raS 'uSDu'}, and it hurts to say {'uSmey}; It just doesn't fit to what we know.
I therefore regard those new words as homonyms, that Okrand may explain as a derived word from an original meaning, that now has become common usage.
As long as we don't get any further information, we should stick to the existing rules, except for these two words we just got.
But the point is that there is no existing rule. It's implied that when body part words are used with slang meanings, or to refer to things which are analogous to body parts, they remain grammatically body parts. People assumed a rule based on a few examples, but it now seems that we have about the same number of counterexamples. -- De'vID
Lieven:
"Even as slang, {Ho'} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Even though referring to a person, its plural is {Ho'Du'}"
In addition to {Ho'} "idol, someone worthy of emulation" (cf. KGT p. 152f.) add {jIb Ho'Du'} "comb" from TalkNow! to the list of "metaphorical body parts" (as someone once called them). -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
On 4/4/2017 5:58 AM, De'vID wrote:
But the point is that there is no existing rule. It's implied that when body part words are used with slang meanings, or to refer to things which are analogous to body parts, they remain grammatically body parts. People assumed a rule based on a few examples, but it now seems that we have about the same number of counterexamples.
Right. We have suggested a rule based on the KGT examples, but for my part I have always qualified it as speculative. We now have counterexamples, suggesting this is not a general rule—the grammatical genders of "being capable of using language," "body part," and "everything else" are not necessarily baked into the nouns themselves, but may depend on which noun and what circumstance the plurals are being used. Whether Okrand simply forgot about words like {DeSqIvDu'} I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. We know enough to say that we can't draw any firm conclusions about this subject without explicit guidance. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Without assuming anything, we can be sure with the following: a) Plural for body parts is -Du'. b) Ho' follows a) c) noq does not. 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.) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/BodyParts
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
It's still there, we're just moving stuff around for the next qep'a': http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/past-qepamey/qepa-chamah-wejdich/new-wo... qurgh On Apr 4, 2017 3:45 AM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I just noticed something odd.
Recently, we were given the noun {noq}, meaning both nipple (anatomy) and nipple (like on a bottle). The plural is {noqDu'} when referring to a body part, and {noqmey} when referring to bottles.
In KGT, we were told this about {DeSqIv}: <A {bargh} is probably the most frequently used pot. It is rather large and has a flattened bottom. The smaller {nevDagh} is characterized by its V-shaped handles, termed {DeSqIvDu'} ("elbows"; note that {-Du'}, the plural suffix for body parts, is used here even though the handles are not literally body parts).>
Previously, some people have taken this to imply that body parts were a noun class in Klingon, and that body part words take the {-Du'} suffix even when not referring to a body part. But {noq} seems to contradict this.
What's going on here? Is one or the other of {noq} or {DeSqIv} an exception to the rule, and if so, what's the rule? Or does each body part word work differently when used to refer to a non-body-part in the plural, and it's just something you have to memorise?
Incidentally, the online version of the qep'a' booklet where {noq} was given seems to have disappeared: http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-wejdich/new-words/
Does anyone have a copy of it?
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Lieven -
qurgh lungqIj -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel