tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 01 12:35:25 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} yoD Hov'a'
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} yoD Hov'a'
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 12:35:25 -0400
>Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 09:02:58 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>ghItlh yoDtargh:
>>The way I think of it, is that the last noun is the main noun and
>>the noun which preceeds describes that noun in some way.
>Whoa! You might be doing more harm than good with this explanation.
>You've said that the first noun "describes" the second one, implying
>that the first noun is acting as an adjective. I will not let that
>go unchallenged!
>The final noun in a N-N phrase is the main one, yes. Without it, the
>entire meaning of the phrase is lost. But, according to the dictionary,
>the preceding noun OWNS that noun in some way. The N-N phrase is a
>POSSESSIVE construction.
I'm not sure we can be so restrictive. I personally believe there's lots
more leeway in interpreting N-N than that. It really seems to be that the
second noun is in some way associated with the first...so "description"
really isn't so bad a term. It doesn't make it an adjective, just a
modifying noun.
It's more than my opinion, though. We have canon:
"peQ chem" is "magnetic field". "peQ" is magnetism and "chem" appears to
be field. Magnetism doesn't *own* the field (how can it own anything?),
but rather the field is modified by magnetism, it's somehow associated with
it.
A "HoS lIngwI'" isn't a generator which is owned by energy, it's a
generator which is associated with energy (in particular, that's what it
generates).
A "Hergh QaywI'" is not a transferer which is owned by medicine, but a
transferer of medicine (pneumatic hypo).
A "tuj muvwI'" is not owned by heat, it is a thermo-suture.
A "woj choHwI'" isn't owned by radiation, it's a reactor.
So I think that there is plenty of evidence for a broader interpretation of
N-N constructions.
Now, how does this square with my objection to N-N for "made of" in my
previous post? I do not mean to say that it's 100% definitely wrong to use
N-N for "made of". I'm just saying I personally feel less confident about
it than other uses. In my own subjective opinion, "made of" is more of a
stretch than these other broad meanings.
Nor should my citation of Welsh be taken to mean that I'm saying Klingon
must behave like Welsh (people always accuse me of this whenever I cite
another language). I was using Welsh to demonstrate that Klingon didn't
have to be like English. We use "paper book" in English, using N-N
constructions for "made of". I was demonstrating that this is not the only
way to do things; that's possible to have a language which had N-N
constructions that are used heavily and similarly to Klingon's but which
did not extend them (usually) to "made of", but preferred "book after its
making of paper". So I'm not saying Klingon has to follow the Welsh
model... just that it also doesn't have to follow the English one.
~mark