[91432] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] beings capable of speech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Mon Dec 26 20:10:34 2011
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:10:18 +0100
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============3264511027368115118==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30426fc0ebfec004b5088bb0
--20cf30426fc0ebfec004b5088bb0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
De'vID:
> > I don't know whether the apparent Human penchant for writing stories
> > where the protagonists are animals extends to Klingons, but if they
> > also tell stories involving talking animals, or if they were to
> > translate such stories into Klingon, would the animals take the "beings
> > capable of speech" suffixes?
QeS 'utlh:
> We have two small pieces of evidence that come to mind; unfortunately
> they contradict each other. The first is the continued use of {-Du'} with
> words like {DeSqIv} even when the word applies to the handles of a pot;
> the other is the variable use of {-pu'} or {-mey} to apply to speech-
> mimicking birds like the {qaryoq} or {vIlInHoD}.
> [... poD...]
> The fact that Maltz's criterion for using {-mey} is the lack of sensible
> conversation tells me that something that one *can* sensibly engage in
> conversation with would be generally considered as {-pu'}-able. So talking
> targs would be {targhpu'}.
So, in a fictional universe where a Klingon cannot converse intelligibly
with a {targh}, but a {vIghro'} can, a Klingon would refer to {targhmey},
whereas a {vIghro'} would refer to {targhpu'}. At least I think that's
what you're saying. And that makes sense to me.
De'vID:
> > Would a talking {raS} refer to its {'uSDu'}?
QeS 'utlh:
> Yes. I reckon the {nevDagh} example makes it incontrovertible - and even
> if the table was non-talking I still think it has {'uSDu'}, not {'uSmey}.
Okay. But what about a body part a piece of talking furniture has, which
isn't exactly analogous to a humanoid (klingonoid?) body part. Say, a
{raS}'s {'aqroS}. Is the plural {'aqroSmey} or {'aqroSDu'}? Or, say, a
talking car's wheels (think of Thomas the Tank Engine): are they
{rutlhmey}, or {rutlhDu'}?
(This is now diverging from the original topic of talking animals... but
whatever.)
--
De'vID
--20cf30426fc0ebfec004b5088bb0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p>De'vID:<br>
> > I don't know whether the apparent Human penchant for writing =
stories<br>
> > where the protagonists are animals extends to Klingons, but if th=
ey<br>
> > also tell stories involving talking animals, or if they were to<b=
r>
> > translate such stories into Klingon, would the animals take the &=
quot;beings<br>
> > capable of speech" suffixes?</p>
<p>QeS 'utlh:<br>
> We have two small pieces of evidence that come to mind; unfortunately<=
br>
> they contradict each other. The first is the continued use of {-Du'=
;} with<br>
> words like {DeSqIv} even when the word applies to the handles of a pot=
;<br>
> the other is the variable use of {-pu'} or {-mey} to apply to spee=
ch-<br>
> mimicking birds like the {qaryoq} or {vIlInHoD}.<br>
> [... poD...]<br>
> The fact that Maltz's criterion for using {-mey} is the lack of se=
nsible<br>
> conversation tells me that something that one *can* sensibly engage in=
<br>
> conversation with would be generally considered as {-pu'}-able. So=
talking<br>
> targs would be {targhpu'}.</p>
<p>So, in a fictional universe where a Klingon cannot converse intelligibly=
with a {targh}, but a {vIghro'} can, a Klingon would refer to {targhme=
y}, whereas a {vIghro'} would refer to {targhpu'}.=A0=A0 At least I=
think that's what you're saying. And that makes sense to me.=A0 </=
p>
<p>De'vID:<br>
> > Would a talking {raS} refer to its {'uSDu'}?</p>
<p>QeS 'utlh:<br>
> Yes. I reckon the {nevDagh} example makes it incontrovertible - and ev=
en<br>
> if the table was non-talking I still think it has {'uSDu'}, no=
t {'uSmey}.</p>
<p>Okay.=A0 But what about a body part a piece of talking furniture has, wh=
ich isn't exactly analogous to a humanoid (klingonoid?) body part.=A0 S=
ay, a {raS}'s {'aqroS}.=A0 Is the plural {'aqroSmey} or {'a=
qroSDu'}?=A0 Or, say, a talking car's wheels (think of Thomas the T=
ank Engine): are they {rutlhmey}, or {rutlhDu'}?</p>
<p>(This is now diverging from the original topic of talking animals... but=
whatever.)</p>
<p>--<br>
De'vID</p>
--20cf30426fc0ebfec004b5088bb0--
--===============3264511027368115118==
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
--===============3264511027368115118==--
