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

[Steven Boozer]

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


Felix Malmenbeck:
> 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.

To add to the conversation:

KGT 190:  Addressing "my Lord" or "my Lady" as {joHwIj} rather than {joHwI'} is insulting indeed, since it implies that my Lord or my Lady is a lower order of being... The only thing worse would be combining mispronunciation with grammatical blundering, such as by saying {joQDu'wIj} ("my ribs") ... when {joHpu'wI'} ("my Lords, my Ladies") is intended. Mistakes of this kind are simply not tolerated and there are no recorded instances of anyone living long enough to repeat the offense.


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

KGT 97:  The smaller {nevDagh} is characterized by its V-shaped handles, termed {DeSqIvDu'} ("elbows"; note the {-Du'}, the plural suffix for body parts is used here even though the handles are not literally body parts).

KGT 152 (re {Ho'}):  This is actually the word for "tooth", but it is applied to someone who is admired or revered. It might be used in a phrase such as {Ho' SoH} ("You are an idol" or "You are someone worthy of emulation"; literally, "You are a tooth") or {Ho' ghaH HoD'e'} ("The captain is an idol"; literally, "The captain is a tooth"). Grammatically, even as slang, {Ho'} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Thus, even though it may refer to a person, its plural is {Ho'Du'} (teeth), making use of the plural suffix for body parts ({-Du'}), not {Ho'pu'}, with {-pu'}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Similarly, it never takes the possessive suffixes associated with beings capable of using language. That is, my idol (literally, "my tooth") is {Ho'wIj} (with {-wIj}, the general suffix for my), not {Ho'wI'} (with {-wI'}, the suffix for my used with beings capable of using language).

Note however that you use the pronoun {ghaH} to refer to a someone worthy of emulation/respect, not {'oH}:

  Ho' ghaH HoD'e'
  The captain is an idol (lit. "The captain is a tooth") KGT

>> 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.

Exactly the same variations we saw with {Ho'} are seen WRT {petaQ} in the {paq'batlh}:

 nItlhejbogh petaQmey tInuD 
 Look at these p'takhs at your side PB 

 nuqDaq ghaH petaQ'e' 
 Where is the p'takh [...]" PB

 petaQ'a' SoH 
 You dirty p'takh. PB


BTW note {petaQ} "p'takh" vs. {petaQ'a'} "dirty p'takh" and its implications for the {HI'} "dictator" vs. {HI''a'} "tyrant?, dirty dictator?" thread.



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons