tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 13 21:40:04 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: new here
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: RE: new here
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:43:45 -0500
Kenneth Traft writes:
>>"most of the 23rd century" being {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom}
>>(Skybox card S15 as reprinted in HolQeD 4:3).
>I would interpret HochHom (most) more as an adverbal.
Adverbs usually modify verbs. Here, {HochHom} is obviously modifying a
noun; by common definitions that makes it an adjective. That's a source
of some difficulty, since the main tool we have for interpreting two nouns
next to one another is TKD 3.4's description of the "possessive" meaning.
>> And then The Klingon Way went
>and >said things like {Hoch 'ebmey tIjon} for "Capture all opportunities."
>Now it seems >that either {Hoch} acts like a number or there is some hitherto
>unknown grammar at >work.
> Since Hoch is a noun
>"in itself" I would use the rules of noun consturction like in the Klingon Way
>-- "Hoch 'ebmey tIjon." Hoch Dochmey -- All things Hoch tlhIngan -- All
>Klingons, etc. To imply unknown grammar at work seems a bit of a reach.
The "rules of noun construction" in TKD 3.4 say that {Hoch 'ebmey} should
be translated "everything's opportunities" or "opportunities of all". It
doesn't match "all opportunities" as TKW translates it. We don't yet know
the real explanation for why it's translated that way; nothing written in
TKD (or stated in CK or PK) tells us what's going on.
>>TKD doesn't say {bID} is a number. {wa'} is a number, but {bID} is just a
>>noun. Until we find out why {Hoch} is used in front of nouns, there isn't
>>a good argument in favor of using {bID} the same way.
>
>It does however say that numbers are treated as nouns. wa' tlhIngan is one
>Klingon and follows the rules of noun consturction. bID is a noun and
>therefore it would follow that bID tlhIngan means half Klingon.
{wa' tlhIngan} isn't a run-of-the-mill noun-noun construction. TKD 5.2
gives special rules for using numbers in concert with other nouns. These
rules don't give the same translation as the possessive interpretation of
TKD 3.4 would give. If we treat {wa' tlhIngan} as a noun-noun without
regarding {wa'} as a number, it looks like "one's Klingon", the Klingon
belonging to one of something. {bID} isn't listed as a number; the noun-
noun translation of {bID tlhIngan} is the only one obviously applicable,
and it yields "a half's Klingon", not "one half of a Klingon" and not
"a half-Klingon".
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj