tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 17 03:23:01 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] plural of <De' jengva'>
<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><div>Lieven:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div></div></blockquote>Please note that this word seems to be a short form of "footlight", it's not the plural of "foot".</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. 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><div>De'vID:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
> However, he gave his<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
characteristically noncommittal answer regarding how the Klingons do it,<br>
so we don't have a firm answer either way (or at least I didn't catch<br>
one, as there was a lot of crosstalking and digressions maja'chuqtaHvIS).</blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Lieven: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div></div>
Yes, indeed, there was a lot of crosstalking.<br>
But there is one thing I remembered, and I thought that was a decision, all at the beginning. (that's why I didn't follow the rest of it)<br>
<br>
When you asked me in the first place for the plural of {De' jengva'}, I answered that it would follow the standard rules, so {De' ngop} are CD's and {De' jengva'mey} wouls have the "scattered all about" meaning. I then looked over to MO, asking "isn't it?" and he just nodded and said a confirming "yes, of course." It might not have been the exact words, but he looked like to say "Strange question. What else would it be?"<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, he agreed with you 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><br></div><div>Lieven: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Next, adding to this sitiuation, we must remember that the TalkNow Software is written on how "a visiting klingon would call a thing he sees on earth". Form this point of view, apparently (my guess) Klingons don't have CDs. That's why the klingon calls it a "data-plate". And the plural of plate is {ngop}, of course.</blockquote>
<div> </div><div>In TNG, the Federation seems to transfer data on some kind of "data crystal" (what? why don't they have wifi or bluetooth or something?). Do we know what Klingons use?</div><div><br></div>
</div>-- <br>De'vID<br>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol