tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 11 06:27:45 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} {-wI'} on sentencesQ: N-N = genitive? (was: -wI' on sentences)
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} {-wI'} on sentencesQ: N-N = genitive? (was: -wI' on sentences)
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 10:27:45 METDST
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> charghwI' writes:
> >...Just replace N1-N2 with "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1".
>
> 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
> 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.
>
I would like to know how far this interpretation really
should go (I don't own HolQeD 3:3, so if the answer is there,
tell me to buy it :-). In a recent post, ~mark mentioned
"captain's hitting" and it struck me, that this perfectly
fits the formula from TKD, while it surely stretches the
"possessive" interpretation. So if "qIptaHghach" is o.k.
for "hitting", can "HoD qIptaHghach" be used for both
'the act of the captain hitting s.o.' and 'the act of
s.o. hitting the captain'?
btw: there may be nouns that fit these constructs without
the need of -ghach, I just didn't bother to look for any.
Marc 'Dochlangan'
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------