tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 24 08:44:54 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Those ever-lovable plural noun suffixes.
From: "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
> 1. -Du'
>
> If -Du' is affixed to an otherwise regular -mey noun, could it be
> interpreted as meaning a body part, if such an interpretation would make
> sense? For example, could 'ay'Du' be considered as something like "body
> parts", or would I just get confused stares from the Klingons in the
> vincinity? Or, with the -wI' suffix, something like {HuH ngaSwI'Du'} "gall
> bladders"? (A similar question could be asked for -pu'. For example,
> Hannibal Lecter could refer to various dishes he cooks up as Sojpu'.)
> Granted, these are somewhat extreme cases, but I was just asking out of
> curiosity. (Perhaps these uses could just be considered "poetic," like
using
> -mey with body parts.)
Although I don't have anything concrete, I can point out that in KLINGON FOR
THE GALACTIC TRAVELER we are treated to one or two cases of interesting
choices of plural suffix. One example is on page 97: the /nevDagh/ ("small
pot with v-shaped handles") has handles called /DeSqIvDu'/ "elbows," and
Okrand points out that /-Du'/ is used even though the handles are not
literally body parts.
My idea of what's going on here is that words are more closely associated
with one type of suffix than another, perhaps even to the extent of having a
gender, as you suggest later in your post (but apply it to all nouns, not
just pronouns, and accept that you cannot "see" the gender in the word
itself). As such, even when they're used for purposes other than their
primary one (like using "elbows" for "v-shaped handles"), they still take
the suffix they usually get. Breaking the pattern, even for technical
correctness, would be marked. For example, if you invented two intelligent,
talking chairs, they would be called /quSmey/, not /quSpu'/, until such time
as the entire Klingon language community (in the Empire, not here on Earth)
recognized intelligent, talking chairs as a noun that should get /-pu'/.
As for what's marked, that depends on how formal or serious you're being.
Stuffy, exact speeches might always use the correct plural marker,
regardless of context, whereas freeflowing conversation might use odd
plurals to make a point, and there are no serious consequences to doing
this.
Note that not every noun is necessarily typed like this. Nouns created with
/-wI'/, for instance, could be anything, depending on the context.
/ghItlhwI'/ could conceivably be /ghItlhwI'pu'/, /ghItlhwI'Du'/, or
/ghItlhwI'mey/.
I think we get another example of this sort of thing in KGT, with /'uSDu'/
for the legs of a table, though I'm not going to search for it now.
Mind you, this is just one idea. Some people are adamant that the plural
marker always indicates the intent of the speaker, and Okrand's /DeSqIvDu'/
and /'uSDu'/ are exceptions because Okrand points them out as exceptions.
Personally, I think that's too easy, and like the idea of "you have to use
that suffix because that's the suffix you have to use," and then any
deviation is used for effect.
SuStel
Stardate 1562.0