tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 02 00:14:56 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} yoD Hov'a'
- From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} yoD Hov'a'
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 21:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 1 Aug 1995, Alan Anderson wrote:
> 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!
I didn't say it acts like an adjective.
> 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 think a more accurate description is that the first noun may describe
an attributive quality of the second noun. That is, the noun-noun
construction can not only be used to show possession, but it can also
simply indicate that one noun is connected or affiliated with the other
noun in some way.
For example, on the trading card SP2, Dr. Okrand calls the Klingon knife
with the retractable side blades a {tlhIngan may' taj} (Klingon battle
knife). The knife {taj} isn't owned or possessed by "battle" {may'}, it's
just somehow associated or affiliated with battle.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
yoDtargh