[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: nuD

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> I believe that (a) you don't intentionally insult someone by using the
> wrong suffix

I think you might, going by TKD:

---------
These suffixes occur in, for example, {joHwI'} <my lord> and
{puqlI'} <your child.> It is grammatically correct to use the
regular possessive suffixes with nouns referring to beings
capable of speech (as in {puqlIj} <your child>), but such con-
structions are considered derogatory; {joHwIj} for <my lord>
borders on the taboo. Students of Klingon should bear this
in mind.

---------

Granted, that was with regards to genitive, not plural, but the general idea may still hold.


> (b) whether you use a language-using suffix or not
> depends on the normal use of a noun, not the individual situation.

I suspect I sort of agree with you, and sort of don't. I don't have any references, but my general feel is this:

When speaking in metaphor, you would use whatever suffix is appropriate within the scope of the metaphor. For example, when calling people animals*, the metaphor is one in which they are *actual* animals (and therein lies the punch; it wouldn't be much of an insult to say "You're animals (except for the many ways in which you differ from animals, which - I'll admit - are quite many)!")). So, it'd still be {Ha'DIbaHmey}.

However, if talking about animals which really were capable of language ... force of habit may cause me to say {Ha'DIbaHmey} (much as the handles of a {nevDagh} are called {DeSqIvDu'}), but upon closer inspection, I'd probably have to admit that {Ha'DIbaHpu'} would be correct.

However, I suppose one could argue that what one has done then - in one's head, at least - is to add a new use of the noun:
{Ha'DIbaH} can now mean either 1) animal-in-general [common usage] or 2) animal-capable-of-language [rare].
The two are separate concepts in one's mind, but happen to be represented by the same word.


*Throughout this e-mail, I'll be talking about animals as those humanoids aren't animals. Not sure what the case is with the Klingon word {Ha'DIbaH}.

> Whatever a {petaQ} is, it is probably something that doesn't use
> language, so the plural {petaQmey} is used. You don't change that plural
> when you are applying it to language-users.

An alternative explanation is that Molor was referring to Kahless' "p'takhs scattered all about"; his "rabble of p'takhs", if you will.

[Also, it may be worth noting that elsewhere in paq'batlh (paq'raD, Canto 4), we have the phrase {nuqDaq ghaH petaQ'e'}, so that's at least one piece of evidence suggesting that a {petaQ} is treated as capable of language.]

________________________________________
From: David Trimboli [david at trimboli.name]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 18:40
To: tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: nuD

On 12/12/2012 12:03 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
>
>> Interesting that {petaQ} takes {-mey} here.
>
> When this was first posted to this list, someone (I don't know who) commented that the line was:
>
>    shouted by Molor at Kahless; not sure if the {-mey} was
>    intentional to add insult to, well, insult.

I believe that (a) you don't intentionally insult someone by using the
wrong suffix and (b) whether you use a language-using suffix or not
depends on the normal use of a noun, not the individual situation.

(a)
Using a non-language-using suffix inappropriately can be insulting
without being a tool to insult someone. Using an inappropriate {-mey}
just sounds like you don't know how to speak.

(b)
When asked about talking parrots and robots, Maltz balked, unsure of the
correct answer. When using body-part words to describe parts of
crockery, the body-part suffixes are used.

No doubt when a Klingon is confronted by one of thsoe edge cases like
parrots and robots, his mind fights a war between the suffix the word is
*supposed* to use and the suffix the situation demands. Language-using
suffixes are not discretionary, but if you understand what they mean,
you might think they are.

Whatever a {petaQ} is, it is probably something that doesn't use
language, so the plural {petaQmey} is used. You don't change that plural
when you are applying it to language-users.

If I wanted to call some citizens "swords," perhaps as a metaphor for
their use in defense of a city, I would call them {yanmey}, not
{yanpu'}. A sword does not use language, and my calling them swords does
not make them swords or make swords use language.

yanmey chaH rewbe'pu''e'
the citizens are swords

It's questionable what pronoun to use there, but I think I picked the
right one.

--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol