[Tlhingan-hol] plural of <De' jengva'>

[De'vID jonpIn]

> De'vID jonpIn:
> >> Is it <De' jengva'mey> or <De' ngop>?
> >>
> >> We discussed this question at the qepHom, but I'd like
> >> to get people's opinions here before I summarise that
> >> discussion so as not to prejudice people one way or the other.

> 'anan naHQun:
> > That's a great question.
> > I could see arguments for each side having valid points.

Voragh:
> [poD]
> {De' jengva'mey} may just grate on Klingon ears.  The "scattered about"
sense of {jengva'mey} doesn't always apply:  e.g. a box or shelf of neatly
organized CDs are not "scattered all over the place".  OTOH, {De' jengva'}
may be a specialized technical sense and so the expected plural form may
not apply.  OTOH (!) the usual, expected plural suffix is sometimes
retained even when the word is being used metaphorically:
> [poD]

Yes, basically we covered the same arguments at the qepHom.  Lieven (I
believe) thought it should be <De' ngop>, then someone (whom I don't
remember) raised the example of "computer mouses" (which is considered by
some people to be more correct than "computer mice"), and suggested perhaps
<De' jengva'mey> is the same way.  Someone else pointed out that computer
manufacturers sometimes avoid the problem by using "mouse devices".
Another person said something about "fishes" in the crosstalk. MO gave the
example of "foots", referring to the footlights at the front of the stage
(one footlight is a "foot"; more than one are "foots"), and noted that a
word doesn't necessary pluralise in the same way when it is used to refer
to different things.  However, he gave his characteristically noncommittal
answer regarding how the Klingons do it, so we don't have a firm answer
either way (or at least I didn't catch one, as there was a lot of
crosstalking and digressions maja'chuqtaHvIS).

--
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20111117/7322e904/attachment.html>