tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 27 18:12:04 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: ta

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: ta
• Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:11:46 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Sep 27, 2005, at 9:22 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> QeS la':
>
>> So the use of gender suffixes in Klingon may not be just done on  
>> the fly, by
>>
>
> Gender!?  Surely you meant number or possessive suffixes?  Or are  
> you using
> "gender" to refer to the basic person vs. thing distinction in Klingon
> grammar -- "sentience" perhaps?

Gender is exactly the right word.  Look it up -- its primary meaning  
is a grammatical one.  It refers to subclassifying words using  
criteria that are usually based on measureable qualities (like social  
status or sex) but also sometimes for arbitrary reasons.  Gender  
determines which variant of other words or modifiers are required.

Klingon has two different kinds of gender: "people" vs. "things" for  
possessive suffixes, and "people" vs. "body parts" vs. "other" for  
plurals.

The notable thing here is that Klingon plural gender seems to apply  
to the word itself, and not to what the word refers to.  {Ho'} gets {- 
Du'} even when used to label people, and {DeSqIv} gets {-Du'} even  
when it's applied to pot handles.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: ta
    • From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
  • Re: ta
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: ta
• Next by Date: Re: ta
• Previous by thread: Re: ta
• Next by thread: Re: ta
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level