[109401] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {DeSqIv} and {noq}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lieven)
Tue Apr 4 04:36:41 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 10:36:14 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNzE7gPjfRtWEuX136Xz2NV90f18xxtjYWm5UQVP9CYbw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
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
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
