tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 26 17:10:28 2011

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] beings capable of speech

De'vID jonpIn ([email protected]) 

<p>De&#39;vID:<br>
&gt; &gt; I don&#39;t know whether the apparent Human penchant for writing stories<br>
&gt; &gt; where the protagonists are animals extends to Klingons, but if they<br>
&gt; &gt; also tell stories involving talking animals, or if they were to<br>
&gt; &gt; translate such stories into Klingon, would the animals take the &quot;beings<br>
&gt; &gt; capable of speech&quot; suffixes?</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; We have two small pieces of evidence that come to mind; unfortunately<br>
&gt; they contradict each other. The first is the continued use of {-Du&#39;} with<br>
&gt; words like {DeSqIv} even when the word applies to the handles of a pot;<br>
&gt; the other is the variable use of {-pu&#39;} or {-mey} to apply to speech-<br>
&gt; mimicking birds like the {qaryoq} or {vIlInHoD}.<br>
&gt; [... poD...]<br>
&gt; The fact that Maltz&#39;s criterion for using {-mey} is the lack of sensible<br>
&gt; conversation tells me that something that one *can* sensibly engage in<br>
&gt; conversation with would be generally considered as {-pu&#39;}-able. So talking<br>
&gt; targs would be {targhpu&#39;}.</p>
<p>So, in a fictional universe where a Klingon cannot converse intelligibly with a {targh}, but a {vIghro&#39;} can, a Klingon would refer to {targhmey}, whereas a {vIghro&#39;} would refer to {targhpu&#39;}.   At least I think that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying. And that makes sense to me.  </p>

<p>De&#39;vID:<br>
&gt; &gt; Would a talking {raS} refer to its {&#39;uSDu&#39;}?</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; Yes. I reckon the {nevDagh} example makes it incontrovertible - and even<br>
&gt; if the table was non-talking I still think it has {&#39;uSDu&#39;}, not {&#39;uSmey}.</p>
<p>Okay.  But what about a body part a piece of talking furniture has, which isn&#39;t exactly analogous to a humanoid (klingonoid?) body part.  Say, a {raS}&#39;s {&#39;aqroS}.  Is the plural {&#39;aqroSmey} or {&#39;aqroSDu&#39;}?  Or, say, a talking car&#39;s wheels (think of Thomas the Tank Engine): are they {rutlhmey}, or {rutlhDu&#39;}?</p>

<p>(This is now diverging from the original topic of talking animals... but whatever.)</p>
<p>--<br>
De&#39;vID</p>

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level