tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 07 17:33:34 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: no'
DloraH asks:
> which suffix would be used for "my ancestors"?
> a [tuq] is not capable of language.
> a [mangghom] is not capable of language.
> on which side does [no'] fall?
SuStel wrote:
: /-wI'/. The evidence is from Power Klingon:
:
: targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS!
: Your targ has a bigger brain than all your ancestors put together!
Really? Back when I made my transcription of the tape, re-playing the tape
several times, I heard and recorded {no'lIj}.
The only other examples of {no'} in context I know of is:
Hochlogh no' yIquvmoH
All times honor your ancestors. (sic) KGT
reH no' yIquvmoH
Always honor your ancestors. KGT
Uninformative, but here's Okrand's commentary:
"{yIquvmoH}, 'Honor them!' (actually, this is 'Honor him/her!'; the
inherently plural noun {no'}, ancestors, takes a singular pronoun)"
(KGT p.178)
Possible reasons for the confusion:
1) I (and others) mis-heard PK.
2) Okrand mis-spoke on PK.
3) This is a common Klingon error WRT collective nouns.
4) Collective nouns don't "speak" in Klingon, individual nouns do.
: /tuq/ is not capable of using language because it refers to the GROUP of
: family members, not the family members themselves. Likewise for /mangghom/.
: /no'/ does not refer to a group; it refers to members of a group.
Does it indeed? {no'} can just as easily refer to the GROUP of one's ancestors
seen collectively or in their entirety (i.e. "the ancestors"), just like {tuq}
and {qorDu'} or even {mangghom}. The PK example, in fact, refers to {no'lIj
Hoch yabDu'} (as I heard it!) "the brains of all your ancestors" collectively,
i.e. as a group.
We also have the nouns {lopno'}, {no' DIr} and {no' Hol} all of which support
the idea of the group of one's ancestors.
Checking for useful canon I could only find:
pInaDqu' tuqlIj wInaDqu' je
Glory to you and your house.
("We praise you highly; we also praise your house highly") KGT
...which at least settles the question WRT {tuq}. All other examples of {tuq}
and {qorDu'} with possessive suffixes have {-Daj}. Unfortunatley, the
speaking/non-speaking distinction is not made with the third person suffixes.
Although {negh} "soldiers" hasn't been used by Okrand in a sentence, its
grammar was discussed in KGT:
"{mang} is used when the warrior under discussion is described
in terms of his membership in a fighting unit (for example, as
a crew member on an attack cruiser). Perhaps for this reason
it is sometimes translated 'soldier'. The usual plural form of
{mang} is a different word altogether: {negh} (warriors, soldiers).
The word {mangpu'} is seldom used used, but it is not ungrammatical.
It carries with it the notion that there are individuals (more
than one {mang}) making up the group; {negh} focuses on the group
as a unit... All of the negh together make up something called
a {mangghom}." (KGT 49f)
This may well be the answer. The plural noun "focuses on the group as a unit",
while the singular noun (occasionally seen with the "not ungrammatical" plural
suffix {-pu'}) focuses on the "individuals ... making up the group".
But all of our clever analysis hinges on what Okrand actually said on "Power
Klingon", not what what we think he should have said. I'll listen again
tonight. Could someone else listen carefully to "Power Klingon" again?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons