tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 26 09:15:00 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ta
lay'tel SIvten:
> > toQDuj chenmoHlu'.
> > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/ac/pg000331.htm
ghuchu'wI':
> > Dojbej Dujvetlh. puvtaHvIS taQ. mujlaw' telDu'Daj
lay'tel SIvten:
>telDu' ghaj'a' Duj pagh telmey ghaj'a'?
>telDu' ghajbej bo'Degh.
ghuchu'wI':
>DeSqIvDu' ghajlaHchugh nevDagh, telDu' ghajlaH Duj.
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 lit-
erally body parts). (KGT 97)
<<Ho'>> ("idol, someone worthy of emulation") yIlIjQo' je:
This is actually the word for "tooth", but it is applied to someone
who is admired or revered. [...] Grammatically, even as slang, {Ho'}
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.
Similarly, it never takes the possessive suffixes associated with
beings capable of using language. That is, "my idol" (literally,
"my tooth") is {Ho'wIj} (with {-wIj}, the general suffix for "my"),
not {Ho'wI'} (with {-wI'}, the suffix for "my" used with beings capable
of using language). (KGT 152-53)
I'd forgotten about the possessive suffix. Such figurative words thus seem
to behave grammatically - in all respects - as their original literal
meaning. Only context helps one decide which meaning is being used.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons