tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 26 12:32:22 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: suffix -oy

Nancy Nielsen-Brown ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

No more "quick notes! 

bIlugh 
jImoD 'ej jIQaghbej

reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law Hoch tuj puS.

p'an

SKI- Voragh is correct, I hurried and was mistaken.  Replacement proverb
offered.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Steven Boozer
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: suffix -oy


p'an wrote:
>Just a quick note - the suffix -oy - is diminutive.

No.  {-oy} is the "suffix of endearment":

   The suffix usually follows a noun referring to a relative
   (mother, father, etc.), but it could also follow a noun for
   an animal, especially a pet, and means that the speaker is
   particularly fond of whatever the noun refers to. [TKD 174]

   Within the family, a child usually addresses his or her mother
   as {SoS} (Mother) and father as {vav} (Father), though it is not
   uncommon for younger children to use the words {SoSoy} (Mommy)
   and {vavoy} (Daddy). These are the regular words for mother and
   father followed by the suffix {-oy}, which indicates endearment.
   [....] The word for husband is {loDnal} and that for wife is
{be'nal}.
   Though there are occasional exceptions, for the most part, neither
   of these words... typically takes the suffix of endearment {-oy}
   (as in {be'naloy} ["wifey"])."    [KGT 198f]

{-Hom} is the diminutive suffix:

   This is the opposite of the augmentative suffix [{-'a'}]. It
   indicates that what the noun refers to is smaller, less important,
   or less powerful than it would be without the suffix.  [TKD p.21]

>Using it on jaw (Lord) makes it "less important" not "beloved". Sort of

>like "Lordie", and probably quite offensive!

Although you've confused {-oy} with {-Hom}, your instincts are spot on.
We 
know that upper-class Klingons are particularly sensitive about {joH}:

   It is grammatically correct to use the regular possessive
   suffixes with nouns referring to beings capable of speech
   (as in {puqlIj} "your child"), but such constructions are
   considered derogatory; {joHwIj} for "my lord" borders on
   taboo.  [TKD 25]

   Addressing "my Lord" or "my Lady" as {joHwIj} rather than
   {joHwI'} is insulting indeed, since it implies that "my
   Lord" or "my Lady" is a lower order of being. Similarly,
   a group of heads of households would probably not appre-
   ciate being referred to as {joHDu'}, since that would be
   the appropriate way to say "Lords" or "Ladies" only if
   they were body parts. The only thing worse would be com-
   bining mispronuncation with grammatical blundering, such
   as by saying {joQDu'wIj} ("my ribs") [...] when {joHpu'wI'}
   ("my Lords, my Ladies") is intended. Mistakes of this kind
   are simply not tolerated and there are no recorded instances
   of anyone living long enough to repeat the offense. [KGT 190]

OTOH, a religious mystic *might* say {jawoy}, {joHoy} or {Qunoy} as a
sign 
of a particular and intimate devotion -- though I really can't imagine a

Klingon doing this.



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level