tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 03 00:37:37 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2

I wrote:
[{-wI'} is just another Type 9 suffix, applying to entire sentences]
>I'm very proud of this argument, but I'm willing to listen to criticism.

~mark writes:
>You should be proud, it's a good argument.  At least I like it.  I'm not
>about to give up on a broad interpretation of N-N's, because I think we can
>probably find more canon for it.  But your argument is certainly a good
>point and food for thought.

Thank you, sir.  May I have another? :-)

As I said in an earlier post, I've been using a pre-stretched definition of
possession, which accounts for my accepting things like {peQ chem} without
hesitation.  Now that I know I'm really talking about GENITIVE case and not
possessive exclusively, I'll rein in my definition and agree that N-N does
sometimes exceed the boundaries of simple possessive.  I'll even accept
constructions like {puqmey Hoch} (partive?) and {mu'mey latlh} (what's
this?) although they don't seem to fit GENITIVE.  English's "of the" has so
many meanings that I'd be surprised if they ALL fit Klingon's N-N
construction.

 -- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level