[Tlhingan-hol] beings capable of speech

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
> I don't know whether the apparent Human penchant for writing stories  
> where the protagonists are animals extends to Klingons, but if they  
> also tell stories involving talking animals, or if they were to  
> translate such stories into Klingon, would the animals take the "beings  
> capable of speech" suffixes?

We have two small pieces of evidence that come to mind; unfortunately
they contradict each other. The first is the continued use of {-Du'} with
words like {DeSqIv} even when the word applies to the handles of a pot;
the other is the variable use of {-pu'} or {-mey} to apply to speech-
mimicking birds like the {qaryoq} or {vIlInHoD}.

Personally, I think that the latter is more persuasive, given this from
the HolQeD article about 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. Maltz is a
member of the
former camp; he said
he was never able to engage a
{qaryoq} in a
conversation that made
any sense." (HolQeD v10n4p5)

The fact that Maltz's criterion for using {-mey} is the lack of sensible
conversation tells me that something that one *can* sensibly engage in
conversation with would be generally considered as {-pu'}-able. So talking
targs would be {targhpu'}.

taH:
> Would a talking {raS} refer to its {'uSDu'}?

Yes. I reckon the {nevDagh} example makes it incontrovertible - and even
if the table was non-talking I still think it has {'uSDu'}, not {'uSmey}.

QeS 'utlh