[3735] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Qaghqoq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Mar 9 19:44:14 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: awest@netlink.nix.com (Amy West)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 16:32:56 PST
Reply-To: awest@netlink.nix.com
On Wed 9 Mar 94 06:12, Erich Schneider writes:
> I personally think "family" is an "everything else" noun, along with
> "army" and "ship's crew". A family isn't a "being", it's a group of
> beings. A talking computer isn't a "being", it's an object. A
> deaf-mute Klingon, however, would still be referred with the "speaking
> being" constructs, because Klingons in general are speaking beings.
I think the problem is that we don't know that Klingons would
classify this as an everything else noun. "ship's crew" is a another
good example. If you were refering to a crew, would you use 'oH or
chaH? Does a captain say beqwI' or beqwIj? I'm looking at the
definition for "beq", and it says "crew, crewman", meaning, I guess,
that the word for the group is the same as for the individual. Now
what? Do we use beqwIj when talking about the group and beqwI' for
the individual? I don't think so.
Amy
awest@netlink.nix.com
