[90734] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] plural of
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gaerfindel)
Thu Nov 17 09:26:10 2011
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:25:46 -0500
From: Gaerfindel <gaerfindel@hotmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNfbfbjtUfwmw7OTbjhTK4H2exhL943S_f1a6qFDka1=A@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============3816267059933786505==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------060300010302000108040401"
--------------060300010302000108040401
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 11/17/2011 6:22 AM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>
> De'vID:
>
> MO gave the example of "foots", referring to the footlights
> at the front of the stage (one footlight is a "foot"; more
> than one are
> "foots"), and noted that a word doesn't necessary pluralise in
> the same
> way when it is used to refer to different things.
>
> MO used the example to illustrate that "foot" pluralises as "feet"
> when it refers to a body part, but as "foots" when it refers to a kind
> of light. Thus, the plural of "foot" (the light) is not necessarily
> the same as the plural of "foot" (the body part).
> ...Yes, he agreed with you [Lieven] on <De' ngop>. I should have been
> more clear on that. I was referring to whether this is true
> generally, i.e., whether the plural of a compound word always
> pluralises according to the rules governing the "main" noun, which was
> what the discussion (or at least the part I was following) evolved
> into. On this (general) question, MO was considerably more
> noncommittal. However, his example of "footlights" (a type of
> "light", specified by its location at the "foot" of the stage) seems
> to confirm your answer: it pluralises according to the rule for
> "light", not according to the rule for "foot", even though it
> abbreviate to "foot". Since a <De' jengva'> appears to be a type of
> <jengva'> in Klingon eyes, then the plural should be <De' ngop>.
>
> Now, this raises the question: if Klingons had <qam wovmoHwI'[mey]>
> which they refer to as <qam> in the abbreviated singular, is the
> plural of the abbreviation <qammey> or <qamDu'>? The above suggests
> <qammey>, but OTOH we have examples of body parts being used
> metaphorically to refer to non-body-part objects having plurals in
> <-Du'> (e.g., <DeSqIvDu'>, <jIb Ho'Du'>).
quljIb:
Jumping in here ~ Despite both <DeSqIvDu'> and <jIb Ho'Du'> referring to
obvious non-body parts, they still *resemble* the body parts after which
they're named. This is not so with "foots," as short for "footlights."
They are still *lights* and are thus still <wovmoHwI'mey>. So if *I* we
in charge of setting the stage for a production of <'u'>, I'd be talking
about the <qammey>, not the <qamDu'>. The latter has to do with you
blocking, which by the way is abysmal... :-)
--------------060300010302000108040401
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 11/17/2011 6:22 AM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+7zAmNfbfbjtUfwmw7OTbjhTK4H2exhL943S_f1a6qFDka1=A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
De'vID:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
MO gave the example of "foots", referring to the
footlights<br>
at the front of the stage (one footlight is a "foot"; more
than one are<br>
"foots"), and noted that a word doesn't necessary
pluralise in the same<br>
way when it is used to refer to different things.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
MO used the example to illustrate that "foot" pluralises as
"feet" when it refers to a body part, but as "foots" when it
refers to a kind of light. Thus, the plural of "foot" (the
light) is not necessarily the same as the plural of "foot" (the
body part).
<div> </div>
<div>...Yes, he agreed with you [Lieven] on <De' ngop>. I
should have been more clear on that. I was referring to
whether this is true generally, i.e., whether the plural of a
compound word always pluralises according to the rules
governing the "main" noun, which was what the discussion (or
at least the part I was following) evolved into. On this
(general) question, MO was considerably more noncommittal.
However, his example of "footlights" (a type of "light",
specified by its location at the "foot" of the stage) seems to
confirm your answer: it pluralises according to the rule for
"light", not according to the rule for "foot", even though it
abbreviate to "foot". Since a <De' jengva'> appears to
be a type of <jengva'> in Klingon eyes, then the plural
should be <De' ngop>.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now, this raises the question: if Klingons had <qam
wovmoHwI'[mey]> which they refer to as <qam> in the
abbreviated singular, is the plural of the abbreviation
<qammey> or <qamDu'>? The above suggests
<qammey>, but OTOH we have examples of body parts being
used metaphorically to refer to non-body-part objects having
plurals in <-Du'> (e.g., <DeSqIvDu'>, <jIb
Ho'Du'>).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
quljIb:<br>
Jumping in here ~ Despite both <DeSqIvDu'> and <jIb
Ho'Du'> referring to obvious non-body parts, they still
*resemble* the body parts after which they're named. This is not so
with "foots," as short for "footlights." They are still *lights* and
are thus still <wovmoHwI'mey>. So if *I* we in charge of
setting the stage for a production of <'u'>, I'd be talking
about the <qammey>, not the <qamDu'>. The latter has to
do with you blocking, which by the way is abysmal... :-)
</body>
</html>
--------------060300010302000108040401--
--===============3816267059933786505==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============3816267059933786505==--
