tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 26 14:38:36 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: klingon CD
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: klingon CD
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:38:21 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 07:55:56 -0700 "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:45:00 -0700
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
> >On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 12:46:50 -0700 Dave Yeung
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> qatlh {Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh romuluSngan nejwI'} lo'lu'be'? After all,
> >> presumably it is the Romulans doing the searching and killing, and so
> >> they should be in the subject position. Or is this construct ambiguous
> >> as well?
>
> >That definitely means "The probe of the Romulan who seeks and kills".
>
> Definitely? Why couldn't it mean "the Romulan probe that seeks and kills"?
>
> ~mark
I have not seen an example in canon where a noun-noun
construction was grammatically treated like a single noun within
a relative clause. Meanwhile, we DO have an example of a
noun-noun construction split by a relative clause such that the
relative clause is treated like one of the nouns in the
noun-noun construction.
That's why.
charghwI'