[Tlhingan-hol] being capable of language suffix class - property of noun, or referent?

[David Trimboli]

On 5/10/2012 12:27 PM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>
> Quvar:
>  >> On proof for this is the slang expression {Ho'} for "hero, idol", which
>  >> will be {Ho'Du'} and {Ho'wIj} even when used to refer to a person.
>
> SuStel:
>  > There are many examples of this. Another is how pot handles are
> called {DeSqIvDu'}, even though they're not body parts.
>  >
>  > Using a word or suffix appropriate to the referent instead of the
> noun may not be wrong, but it will call strong attention to what you've
> done.
>
> maj.  It seems clear it would be {wIvwIj} even if {wIv} referred to a
> person.
>
> A related question: is it {cha'DIchwI'} because {cha'DIch} in this sense
> refers to a person (i.e., it isn't quite the same word as the ordinal
> number "second"), or is it {cha'DIchwIj} (because it's the same word as
> the number and follows the logic of {wIv})?

I don't see any reason to think that {cha'DIch} as a noun is most 
strongly related to a *thing*. In this case I would expect the suffix to 
depend on usage.

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