tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 19 07:29:09 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: body parts?
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: body parts?
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:28:56 CST
jIjatlh:
> >veins and muscles don't "feel" like body parts to me
>
mujang ghunchu'wI', jatlh:
> Is that because they're internal?
no, that's not it...
> Based on a comment about food
> preparation on page 88 of KGT, I get the impression that the criterion for
> "body part" is that it be anatomically identifiable.
first of all, thanks for the reference; now the question is
what does it mean to be "anatomically identifiable"? I assume,
single cells are not? But are muscle fibers? How do I make the
distinction without taking a course in Anatomy? :-(
> For what it's worth,
> the list of "animal parts" on that page does include {'aD} along with such
> things as {namwech} and {wuS}.
>
{namwech} and {wuS} seem fine to me; the ones in the listing that
I would not have thought of as "body parts" are: Somraw, to'waQ,
Hom, ghISDen, veD, 'aD. Maybe {luH}, depending on the meaning of the
English word "intestines". If it refers to a collection of inner organs,
then it isn't "a" body part. But maybe it refers to just one inner
organ. I'm not sure if that gives you a sharper image of my denotations
of "body part".
I would not expect, if you go out on the street asking people to
name their body parts, a lot of them to come up with stuff like
vein... Of course "anatomically identifiable" is a more specific
definition than "body part", albeit one that I have trouble applying...
Anyway, I think this answers my original question.
It seems obvious that {'aD} and consorts take the plural in {-Du'}.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]