tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 26 15:40:56 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Plurals
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Plurals
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:41:07 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
Doneq mused:
> Since one of my previous posts (the one in which I didn't know
> whether to use {porghmey} or {porghDu'}), I've been thinking about
> plurals.
maj. QubnIS ghojwI'.
> For example, a computer is a thing, so we use {De'wI'mey}. But some
> computers (e.g., the Enterprise computer) ARE capable of using
> language. Should we use {De'wI'pu'} in that case?
Do computers *use* language? Modern computers process language and
put together words in ways they are programmed to, but they aren't
really using it. I would never use {De'wI'pu'} unless I was
referring to a race of sentient computers like ...
> Similarly, Data is an android, who uses language, but who is not a
> (biological) lifeform. (Ok, ok, some might say Data IS a lifeform,
> and that that's enough reason to use {-pu'}...) Should we use
> {qoqpu'}? (Or maybe, {ghot qoqpu'} or {yoq qoqpu'})
This is a philosophical question. Remember the episode "Measure of a
Man"? The scientist who wanted to dismember Data would have referred
to him and his brother as {qoqmey}, while Data's friends on the
Enterprise would have called them {qoqpu'}. It's exactly the same as
choosing between {ghaH} and {'oH}. The talking car on the TV series
_Knight Rider_ might be a {ghaH} or an {'oH} depending on your
perception.
> Then, we have {lom}, which also refers to a body. I suppose
> it'll get the same suffix as {porgh} does, however I still don't
> know which one.
{lom} has been discussed before when it was used in a story. I
think both {lomDu'} and {lommey} could be right. I use {lommey}.
> And if we exaggerate a little, {yab} is a bodypart and therefore
> gets {-Du'}. But it also is the part of the body which is
> responsible for language, and which uses it (while thinking in a
> particular language, or speaking (with help from the mouth :) and
> reading (with help from the eyes) and listening to someone else
> (...ears)), so maybe in some (perhaps poetical) circumstances we
> might use {-pu'}.
The suffix {-pu'} is for language-using *beings*, not parts of
beings. Don't use it on {yab} {nuj} {jat} or any other part of the
body that participates in using language. Previous to KGT I might
have considered using {-pu'} on a body part if that body part were
being used to stand in for the whole person, as in {?jinmolvamvaD
vumtaH cha'maH yabpu'}. But the {DeSqIvDu'} on the pot in KGT shows
that body parts retain their body part plurals, even when they aren't
used as body parts. I suspect that if Klingons call a post that
supports a table {'uS} then they call them {'uSDu'} in the plural.
Poetry is a no-holds-barred environment. In poetry you can find
justification for putting verb suffixes on nouns, number suffixes on
verbs and little squiggles instead of words. So no comment.
> (Or, of course, when some psychotic murderer has
> done his job, we might even use {yabmey} }}:-)
Hardi har har.
> I don't think you shoeld take this post to seriously, I was just
> semi-seriously trying to have fun with the language.
It's an interesting question how closely the plurals are connected to
the nouns themselves, and to the concepts. If Klingon horror movie
villains have their hands replaced with knives do we speak of
{tajDu'}? In an animated cartoon where talking trees explain the
rudiments of honour and personal hygiene to Klingon preschoolers, do
we speak of {Sorpu'}? Is that usage cute or utterly natural?
chaq Seng vIjonmeH reH law'meH mojaq vInop. cha' jatlhbogh Sor
vIlegh.
- Qov