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

[De'vID jonpIn]

De'vID:

> 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.
>>
>
Lieven:

> Please note that this word seems to be a short form of "footlight", it's
> not the plural of "foot".


Yes.  MO used the example to illustrate that "foot" pluralises as "feet"
when it refers to a body part, but as "foots" when it refers to a kind of
light.  Thus, the plural of "foot" (the light) is not necessarily the same
as the plural of "foot" (the body part).

De'vID:

> > 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).
>
>
Lieven:

>  Yes, indeed, there was a lot of crosstalking.
> But there is one thing I remembered, and I thought that was a decision,
> all at the beginning. (that's why I didn't follow the rest of it)
>
> When you asked me in the first place for the plural of {De' jengva'}, I
> answered that it would follow the standard rules, so {De' ngop} are CD's
> and {De' jengva'mey} wouls have the "scattered all about" meaning. I then
> looked over to MO, asking "isn't it?" and he just nodded and said a
> confirming "yes, of course." It might not have been the exact words, but he
> looked like to say "Strange question. What else would it be?"
>

Yes, he agreed with you on <De' ngop>.  I should have been more clear on
that.  I was referring to whether this is true generally, i.e., whether the
plural of a compound word always pluralises according to the rules
governing the "main" noun, which was what the discussion (or at least the
part I was following) evolved into.  On this (general) question, MO was
considerably more noncommittal.  However, his example of "footlights" (a
type of "light", specified by its location at the "foot" of the stage)
seems to confirm your answer: it pluralises according to the rule for
"light", not according to the rule for "foot", even though it abbreviate to
"foot".  Since a <De' jengva'> appears to be a type of <jengva'> in Klingon
eyes, then the plural should be <De' ngop>.

Now, this raises the question: if Klingons had <qam wovmoHwI'[mey]> which
they refer to as <qam> in the abbreviated singular, is the plural of the
abbreviation <qammey> or <qamDu'>?  The above suggests <qammey>, but OTOH
we have examples of body parts being used metaphorically to refer to
non-body-part objects having plurals in <-Du'> (e.g., <DeSqIvDu'>, <jIb
Ho'Du'>).

Lieven:

> Next, adding to this sitiuation, we must remember that the TalkNow
> Software is written on how "a visiting klingon would call a thing he sees
> on earth". Form this point of view, apparently (my guess) Klingons don't
> have CDs. That's why the klingon calls it a "data-plate". And the plural of
> plate is {ngop}, of course.


In TNG, the Federation seems to transfer data on some kind of "data
crystal" (what?  why don't they have wifi or bluetooth or something?).  Do
we know what Klingons use?

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20111117/0dbcf762/attachment.html>