tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 27 18:36:56 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ta

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

jIja'pu':
>So the use of gender suffixes in Klingon may not be just done on the fly, 
>by

mujang Voragh, ja':
>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?

The second... okay then, I'll call it class, not gender. :P However, the 
term "gender" isn't just restricted to the European masculine-vs-feminine 
dichotomy; the noun classes of Swahili and Navajo are also often referred to 
as "gender", and in my opinion Klingon's distinction between {-mey}, {-pu'} 
and {-Du'} reflects a basic three-gender/class system, supported by the 
differing pairs of possessive pronouns (in which the {-Du'} class and the 
{-mey} class are not distinguished).

jIja'taH:
>deciding whether the labeled object can use language or not: it may be more
>grammatical than semantic. Which would imply that Data, despite his
>intelligence, ability to communicate, use language etc. etc. would still be
>basically a {qoq}, and therefore probably of the {-mey} class, not {-pu'}.

mujangtaH Voragh, ja':
>I think robots in general are considered things, or {-mey} nouns.  
>(Androids may be another matter entirely!)  But Data (and his "brother" 
>Lore) is unique and probably would be considered a person by those who know 
>him, but a thing by those who don't.  In fact TNG "Measure of a Man" was 
>all about this distinction in Federation/Starfleet law.
>And as I always point out whenever this topic comes up, we've never seen or 
>heard of a Klingon robot or android, let alone even a Klingon computer that 
>uses a voice interface.  I think Klingons are uncomfortable with the idea 
>of talking machines.  (IRL the reason we've never seen a talking Klingon 
>computer is that the writers could avoid writing "Klingon" dialogue for the 
>computer to say!)

That all makes sense to me, and I agree with you: I think Data and Lore 
would be called {qoqmey}. If noun class is grammatically inherent in the 
noun rather than semantically (which is what I was musing about), by 
consequence it doesn't matter how intelligent robots get or how well they 
mimic speech: they're always going to be {qoqmey}, not *{qoqpu'}.

jIja'taH:
>But then, we do have the problematic {vIlInHoD} and {qaryoq}, which
>apparently are a tad more fluid.

mujangtaH Voragh, ja':
>{qaryoq} and {vIlInHoD} are both defined as "bird capable of mimicking 
>speech" (HQ 10.4).  Mimicking speech is not the same thing as using speech. 
>  Apparently, these birds cannot talk (i.e. use language to communicate to 
>others of their species);  they only make sounds that sound like talk.

But in that very same article, we're told that Klingon opinions differ on 
whether {-pu'} or {-mey} is proper for those birds:

"The plural suffix for birds is usually {-mey}, the general plural suffix, 
as would be expected. There
is a difference of opinion, however, about which plural suffix to use for a 
few birds capable of mimicking speech, such as the {vIlInHoD} and the 
{qaryoq} (and the larger {qaryoq'a'}), with some Klingons using {-mey} but 
others preferring {-pu'}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using 
language." (HQ 10.4)

While it does go on to say that Maltz prefers {-mey}, the fact that we're 
explicitly told that some Klingons do use {-pu'} shouldn't be ignored IMHO. 
Plus, we're not told whether one or the other is more common.

Savan,

QeS la'
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
View 1000s of pictures, profiles and more now at Lavalife 
http://lavalife.com.au

Back to archive top level