Word: conceptual word, concrete word



Some nouns in Klingon have a difference between conceptual and concrete words(as I call them). I would like to know the classification of these by Klingon linguists. (Or, two verbs: conceptual / concrete)

Comment below with feedback and suggestions.


  1. This seems to be a good suggestion since it highlights the conceptual difference between the existing nouns {vaj} and {SuvwI'}, as well as the nouns {batlh} and {quv}. I think it might be best summarized as "be abstract, be conceptual".

      1. But if we do happen to get a word meaning "be abstract", then we solve the problem posed by the above request, plus an even more practical set of problems, namely how to talk about abstractions. {qech yugh} "consist of ideas" and {wontoy yugh} "consist of ideals" do not seem satisfying, for instance. Better to get more bang for our buck and get comprehensive answers.

        Something similar happened this year with the word {'Inyam} "ego, self". The original request specifically mentioned Freud's very very historically specific conception of the ego, but the gloss given by Maltz did not, because of course there are ways of thinking about selfhood beyond Freud. In the same way, it would be far more useful to know how to talk about abstractions beyond a minor distinction between two sets of two Klingon nouns.

      2. Well, it is a question for clarification if you see it one way. But also a word request (for one, or possibly two verbs "be abstract" and "be concrete" – one of which might just be the other + {-Ha'} but one never knows!)