[Tlhingan-hol] beings capable of speech

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
> But what about a body part a piece of talking furniture has,
> which isn't exactly analogous to a humanoid (klingonoid?) body part.
> Say, a {raS}'s {'aqroS}.

jIjangpu', jIjatlh:
> I actually think {'aqroS} is a bit different. To me anything can have an
> {'aqroS}, even humans; I'd be happy to say {'aqroSwIjDaq ba'taH mIl'oD} "a
> > sabre bear is sitting on top of me".

mujang De'vID, jatlh:
> It's on occasions like this that I really wish I had HolQeD in
> electronic form. {'aqroS} comes from HQ8.3, and my notes say that it
> refers to the underside of a table, or more generally the interior
> underside of the top of something. A table {'aqroS} is the back face
> of its top (or {yor}).

Dammit. I still have trouble keeping those straight ({pIrmuS} and {bIS'ub}
too, for that matter). HIvqa' veqlargh.

But with that said, I still stand by what I said: as {'aqroS} strikes me as
a word for a general area of something - like {Dop} - rather than a discrete
sub-part, I don't like {'aqroSDu'} greatly. (Nor {yorDu'}, for that matter.)

taH:
> Maybe that was another bad example. Let's say you have a talking
> dresser drawer or closet, would its doors be {lojmItmey} or
> {lojmItDu'}?

As with the Thomas the Tank Engine example in the last couple of emails, hard
to say, especially since there's no canon that would help us. I think the
closet would consider its own doors to be its {lojmItDu'}, but whether others
would also call them that, no idea.

QeS 'utlh