tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 07 08:09:06 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: plurals

McArdle ([email protected])



[email protected] wrote:
   
  >In a message dated 11/7/2006 1:31:22 AM Central Standard Time, 
>[email protected] writes:
>
>> {lom} definitely is a thing, since body *parts* are only *parts* of a 
>body.
>> --> -Du' does not apply.
>> 
>> If I remember correctly, a corpse is dead, so cannot speak:
>> --> -pu' does not apply.
>> 
>> ----> -mey is the correct plural suffix for corpses {lommey}.
>> 
>> > Is lom (corpse) a body part or a thing, and would -mey carry the 
>> > scattered-about connotation whn applid to it?
>> 
>> Quvar.
>> 
>I remember somewhere ({Hamlet}?) that corpses *do* speak.  
>
  IIRC that was a ghost, not a corpse, speaking (at least in the English translation; I haven't read it in the original Klingon).  I don't see a word specifically for "ghost".  Would {qa'} do?
   
  Absent a word for "zombie", maybe {lom} could be used for the nasties in Night of the Living Dead, but I wouldn't dignify the sounds they made as "speech".
   
  To take a very wide detour, the distinction between speaking and non-speaking in Klingon is reminiscent of the "gender" distinction between person and non-person in Sumerian.  Humans and gods were persons, and animals (along with everything else) were non-persons.  However, exceptions could be made.  Slaves were often treated grammatically as non-persons, and personified animals (as in fables) as persons.  Might the same be true in Klingon?  Perhaps corpses that don't speak are {lommey} and those that do are {lompu'}.
   
  Qapla'
   
  mIq'ey

 
---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

For just $24.99/mo., Vonage offers unlimited local and long- distance calling. Sign up now.





Back to archive top level