tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 11 00:26:19 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} {-wI'} on sentences
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: }} {-wI'} on sentences
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:26:19 -0500
charghwI' writes:
>...Just replace N1-N2 with "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1".
But that would be a simple formulaic transformation between English and
Klingon. I believe that such transformations are not always appropriate.
For instance, we recently discussed {nav paq} and how the English "book of
paper" means something that doesn't really fit the noun-noun construction
in Klingon. I see a need to determine exactly what DOES fit the noun-noun
construction.
>> With the exception of two examples, I agree with that conclusion.
>
>Your choice to exclude these two examples is arbitrary.
No, it's based on my failure to understand how {Hergh QaywI'} fits the
definition of either possessive or genitive. My interpretation of
noun-noun is that the first noun is the "owner" of the second noun, in one
of the following senses:
- literal ownership of an object, e.g. a child's ball
- exclusive association, e.g. a nation's flag
- territorial residence or occupation, e.g. a criminal's hideout
- physical inclusion of a part, e.g. a table's leg
- abstract inclusion of an aspect, e.g. magnetism's field
- possession of an abstract concept, e.g. a group's opinion
I do not see how medicine can "own" a transferrer in any way.
>Medicine's transferer. Transferrer of medicine. What is the
>problem?
The problem is that while these both sound reasonable in English, they
don't match my understanding of noun-noun in Klingon!
>You don't have to take the word "changer" and make it {choHbogh
>Doch} and then change that to {choHbogh choHwI'} and then claim
>that this really means the same thing as {choHwI'} and since
>{choHbogh choHwI'} can have an object, like {woj}, then so can
>{choHwI'}.
Again, you are misstating my theory. There is a real difference between
saying "{choHwI'} can have an object" and saying "{-wI'} can apply to {woj
choH}." I am not trying to place an object on a noun by claiming that the
noun used to be a verb before it received {-wI'}. I am trying to apply
{-wI'} to a verb which ALREADY has an object.
>In English, I could say, "changer" is the same thing as "thing
>which changes", which is the same thing as "changer which
>changes", which is the same thing as "changer", and since
>"thing which changes" can take an object, like "energy", so can
>"changer" alone, so "changer energy" really means "thing which
>changes energy". Now, if I go around using the term "changer
>energy", do you expect people to understand what I'm saying?
You derived the obviously nongrammatical "changer energy" by placing an
object on a noun. That noun was created by applying "er", the English
equivalent of {-wI'}, to a verb. Once more, this is NOT the sort of thing
I am proposing!
>It is an accident that the word order in {woj choHwI'} is such
>that {woj} is in the "object" position for the verb {choH},
>since in fact, the word is not {choH}. It is {choHwI'}, which
>is not a verb at all. It is a noun.
Meanwhile, I claim that it is an accident that the word order in {woj
choHwI'} is such that it looks like a noun-noun construction, since in
fact, the two apparent nouns are really a sentence with {-wI'} on the verb.
>{woj choHwI'} is a
>noun-noun construction. That's all it is. It is perfectly
>explainable as a noun-noun construction. There is no need to
>modify Klingon grammar to explain it otherwise.
Please do explain {woj choHwI'} as a noun-noun construction. I began on
this torturous path because I did not see an appropriate explanation.
>Deal with it.
When you have invoked this phrase in the past, I have always agreed with
your premises and I could follow your logic. I have had to accept your
conclusions; I have invariably agreed with you. However, in this case, I
refuse to blindly accept the premise that {woj choHwI'} is a noun-noun
construction. I do not believe that it fits TKD's description of a
noun-noun construction. The only two ways I see to "deal with it" are: 1)
to expand noun-noun yet further to encompass everything that "N1's N2" or
"N2 of N1" means in English, or 2) expand {-wI'} to permit it to operate on
a sentence containing an object. I've not seen any compelling reason to
choose one over the other. I personally prefer to limit noun-noun to as
close to "possessive" as possible.
>> The end result is the same whether one considers it a noun-noun phrase or a
>> simple sentence with {-wI'}. There is no impact on how well it will be
>> understood.
>
>THere is, however, a significant impact on the overall
>structure of Klingon sentences if this misunderstanding of the
>grammar were to be accepted and built upon.
MEanwhile, I see a dilution in the quality of translation if Klingon's
N1-N2 is interpreted to mean exactly "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1" in English.
-- ghunchu'wI'