tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 15 12:33:46 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: jIb

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

ngabwI':
> >>> AFAIK, we have only one example of {jIb} in canon, from PK:
> >>>   {DaH jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH} "I must wash my hair now."
> >>> So we have at least a "mass interpretation" of the word.

Jeremy:
>Unless there is an elided plural on jIb (i.e. jIbDu'wIj). I don't
>think this line proves we can use it as a mass noun.

Voragh:
> > I don't follow this.  Do you really think that {DaH jIbwIj
> > vISay'nISmoH} can possibly imply washing a *single* hair??

Jeremy:
>I was apparently not clear.  I think the word "jIbwIj" in the Okrand
>sentence may either mean, "my head hair (as a whole)," or, "my head
>hairs (individually gathered together)."  Since a plural may be elided,
>you cannot be certain that, in general, the noun "jIb" does not refer to
>one hair and in this instance is an unmarked plural meaning "hairs".

Now I follow.  You're right; both are possible but I still feel that {jIb} 
is probably a mass noun.


SPECULATION ALERT!  PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK...

We've seen {-mey} and {-pu'} elided IIRC, but has Okrand ever actually 
elided {-Du'}?  He's said outright that:

   Since number is an optional category in Klingon (the plural suffix
   may be left off even if the word refers to more than one thing),
   {DIr} may refer to a skin or skins or skin as a material or substance.
   Likewise for {veDDIr} "pelt, pelts". So the problem of which plural
   suffix to use comes up only when one feels the need to be very specific.
   (st.klingon 3/23/98)

... but, for some reason, Okrand doesn't omit {-Du'} even when it's clearly 
redundant.  E.g. after numbers:

   Soch QuchDu'
   seven foreheads CK

   chorgh QuchDu' 'IH
   eight beautiful foreheads CK

   cha'maH cha' joQDu'
   twenty-two ribs KGT

   cha' qabDu'
   two faces KGT

   A hand has {vagh nItlhDu'} (five fingers), not {loS nItlhDu'} (four
   fingers) and a thumb.  (HQ 10.2:7)

or after {law'} "be many":

   Suv qabDu' law'
   Many faces fight. KGT

Even more curious, {-Du'} survives careless speech or errors:

   ghopDu'lIj yIlo'  [sic]
   Use your hands!  CK

which should, of course, be {ghopDu'lIj tIlo'} with {tI-} "you [do 
something to] them!"  In fact, the plural suffix is entirely redundant with 
the imperative prefixes:

   ghoplIj yIlo'
   Use your hand!

   ghoplIj tIlo'
   Use your hands!

yet {-Du'} survives.  In fact, {-Du'} is so resilient that it's often used 
even when not referring to actual body parts, but objects which resemble them:

   The smaller {nevDagh} is characterized by its V-shaped handles,
   termed {DeSqIvDu'} ("elbows"; note the {-Du'}, the plural suffix
   for body parts is used here even though the handles are not
   literally body parts). (KGT 97)

   Grammatically, even as slang, {Ho'} ["idol, someone worthy of
   emulation, something deserving of respect (slang)"] follows the
   rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Thus, even though it
   may refer to a person, its plural is {Ho'Du'} (teeth), making
   use of the plural suffix for body parts ({-Du'}), not {Ho'pu'},
   with {-pu'}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using
   language.  (KGT 152)

   This may be done either by using fingers ({nItlhDu'}) or an imple-
   ment called a {rItlh naQ} ("pigment stick"), a stick with flattened
   ends. The ends (sometimes referred to as the {nItlhpachDu'} [literally,
   "fingernails"]) are made in assorted sizes, making it possible to
   produce varied patterns. (KGT 80)

To be fair, I did find one counter-example:

   Both words are used together in an idiomatic expression meaning
   "everybody, everyone": {SenwI'Du' rIlwI'Du' je}, literally "thumbs
   and thumbs". This expression is often heard without the plural
   suffixes: {SenwI' rIlwI' je}.  (HQ 10.2:8)

but this may be another case of odd or non-standard grammar in 
idioms.  Maybe a survival from an earlier stage of the language?  (Can 
anyone think of another?)

Perhaps body parts feel more "real" or "corporeal" (!) so the need to be 
very specific tends to over-ride the theoretical option of elision.  Or, 
maybe it's a matter of changing contemporary usage; a case of "Yes, you 
could omit it but nobody ever does" - rather like the virtual disappearance 
of "whom" or the correct use of the subjunctive in modern American English.



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level