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

[Gaerfindel]

On 11/17/2011 6:22 AM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
> ...Yes, he agreed with you [Lieven] 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'>).

quljIb:
Jumping in here ~ Despite both <DeSqIvDu'> and <jIb Ho'Du'> referring to 
obvious non-body parts, they still *resemble* the body parts after which 
they're named.  This is not so with "foots," as short for "footlights." 
They are still *lights* and are thus still <wovmoHwI'mey>.  So if *I* we 
in charge of setting the stage for a production of <'u'>, I'd be talking 
about the <qammey>, not the <qamDu'>.  The latter has to do with you 
blocking, which by the way is abysmal... :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20111117/92560a53/attachment.html>