[1853] in tlhIngan-Hol
porghpu' porghDu' porghmey joq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Oct 25 15:49:35 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: (Mark E. Shoulson) shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 15:37:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Mon, 25 Oct 93 11:55:04 EDT <9310251555.A
A02008@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 11:55:04 EDT
>I vote for porghDu'. ghapDu' are ghapDu' regardless of whether they are
>connected to one or more beings, so porghDu' are still body parts (even if
>you are referring to the ENTIRE body), and it eliminates the issue of ability
>to use language for the same reason you do this with ghapDu'.
>P.S. I left my office copy of TKD at home, so if ghap is misspelled, I
>can only blame the lumpy grey stuff behind QuchwIj.
You mean "yablIj"? It doesn't matter what word you meant, the meaning is
the same. Unless Okrand was thinking of something rather bizarre in CK's
example of {chorgh QuchDu' 'IH} (and he'd have told us), you're certainly
right about {-Du'} applying to parts of multiple folks (for that matter,
examples in PK bear that out to, e.g. targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch
yabDu' tIn puS.)
As I said, {porghDu'} was a new one on me, but it does kinda grow on you.
I kind of like it. I may be starting to develop a "body-parts" noun-class
in my head, and {porgh} seems to be fitting it.
>-- charghwI'
~mark
