[90751] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] plural of
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Thu Nov 17 15:30:42 2011
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNfbfbjtUfwmw7OTbjhTK4H2exhL943S_f1a6qFDka1=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:30:06 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:22 AM, De'vID jonpIn <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> Yes. =A0MO 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. =A0Thus, the plural of "foot" (the light) is not necessarily the s=
ame
> as the plural of "foot" (the body part).
I would explain the "foot -> foots" pluralization this way: The "foot"
isnt the thing being pluralized. It's just specifying the actual,
albeit elided, lights. On the other hand, the "foot -> feet"
pluralization is because "foot" indeed refers to a foot.
> 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'>? =A0The above suggests <qammey>, but OT=
OH 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'>).
Those are strong suggestions that the choice of plural is based on the
word itself and not on how it's used. However, we also have the
contrary example of {DIr} getting {-Du'} as a literal body part and
{-mey} as a more generic reference. Add the observation that <qam> is
just acting as an attributive noun for the missing plural object, and
I would lean heavily toward <qammey> here.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
