tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 15 14:15:59 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "be'be'" - double negation

From: <>
> From: SuStel:
> > Nowhere does Klingon have any sort of required agreements in the
> That is an overstatement that is nearly, but not entirely true. Compared
> most languages, Klingon has a remarkable lack of need for redundant
> within the language. Meanwhile, unless you use the prefix trick to
> indirect object, the verb prefix has to agree with the number and person
of the
> subject and object.
> > There's no gender, for instance.
> Well, technically, the difference between nouns made plural by {-mey},
> and {-pu'} is that of gender. Gender is not, in all languages, sexual.
> Similarly, the difference between nouns modified by {-ma'} or {-maj} is
> Klingon simply determines gender in a more logical way than many languages

I stand corrected on both counts.

I hadn't considered gender categories other than the most common masculine,
feminine, and neuter, but you are absolutely correct that these are not the
only ones.

> Klingon "gender" is very much not memorized with the vocabulary. Gender
> forming plurals is determined much more by a logical classification of
> nouns: "body part / being capable of language / everything else".

I think Klingons aren't quite sure whether these sorts of gender are
memorized with the vocabulary.  On the one hand, they aren't in total
agreement as to whether /qaryoq/ take /-mey/ or /-pu'/ as the appropriate
plural suffix.  On the other hand, words like /'uS/ and /DeS/ take the body
part suffix even when referring to handles on inanimate objects.

Stardate 2288.2

Back to archive top level