tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 28 09:38:31 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ta
QeS la':
>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'}.
Voragh:
> >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.
QeS la':
>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'}.
> [...]
>But then, we do have the problematic {vIlInHoD} and {qaryoq}, which
>apparently are a tad more fluid.
Voragh:
> >{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.
QeS la':
>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.
Aha! I'd forgotten that bit. I think that's the solution to the
long-standing "talking Data" question: "... some Klingons using {-mey} but
others preferring {-pu'}." As we know, explicitly marking plurality is
optional in Klingon anyway:
The plural suffixes ({-pu'}, {-mey}) are not necessary when a number
is used. (TKD 3.3.2)
Unlike English, however, the lack of a specific suffix for plural
does not always indicate that the noun is singular. In Klingon, a
noun without a plural suffix may still refer to more than one entity.
The plurality is indicated by a pronoun, whether a verb prefix or a
full word, or by context... Fortunately for students of Klingon, it
is never incorrect to add a plural suffix to a noun referring to more
than one entity. Even in those cases where it is unneccessary to do
so. (TKD 21f)
Though plural suffixes are not obligatory on nouns ({SuvwI'} can
mean either "warrior" or "warriors"), Klingons are fussy about the
verb prefixes. (msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand 9/97)
... and also somewhat fluid:
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. If I understand Maltz correctly, it works like
this: The general plural suffix {-mey} is not used with body parts
(except by poets, of course). Thus {DIrmey} "skins" and {veDDIrmey}
"pelts" are not (or, perhaps better, are no longer) body parts, but
rather are materials from which things (clothing or blankets, for
example) may be made. They've lost their association with the crea-
tures that originally had them. (This is kind of like the distinction
in English between "beef", which is eaten, and "cattle", which isn't.)
If there still is that association, that is, if the creatures still
have their skin, or if it's a creature that has multiple skins (maybe
layers, maybe different kinds of skin on different parts of the body),
or if the skin just came off either by natural causes (as with Alan
Anderson's snakes) or by the creatures being, well, skinned, then
the body-part plural suffix {-Du'} may be used: {DIrDu'}. But {DIr}
alone, without a suffix, is heard most often. (st.klingon 3/23/98)
The rule-obsessed prescriptivists won't like it but, as "Federation
linguist" Okrand plays the game, his grammar is supposed to be
descriptivist in nature - describing how the majority of Klingons speak the
standard {ta' Hol} dialect. There's always a little variation that the
foreigner should be aware of, even if he doesn't speak that way him/herself.
Getting back to Data, I can imagine that Worf almost certainly considered
it as a thing when he first met it/him, but may have gradually - almost
without noticing it - began regarding him as a person over the seven years
he knew him, eventually becoming quite friendly and often discussing the
behavior of the humans they served with. If Worf ever discussed his life
on Enterprise in Klingon (say, in a letter to his brother or in his
personal log), I'll bet at some point he started using the "person"
suffixes WRT Data. And while we're speculating here, I can even imagine
Worf speaking Klingon *with* Data on occasion just to keep in practice;
after all, Data can download the grammar and all relevant dictionaries from
the ship's computer to learn any known language virtually
instantaneously. If so, the question now becomes: "Which set of suffixes
would Data use to refer to himself?" <g>
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons