tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 09 22:44:58 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: nominalizing a verb with object

[email protected] on behalf of [email protected] wrote:

> * and now, trying some tlhIngan Hol! (let the Gods be with me, and the (be
> him
> honored) BG too) :-) (an emoticon I understand to mean {mon}).
> {tujangpu'mo'  pabpo'pu'  jIbelqu'} {qar'a'}

jItoy'meH ('ej jISuvmeH!) jIyIntaH.

> As you can see, I sign Herrscher der Welt on the KLI e-mail list. Of course,
> it is
> a nickname, meaning (for those who don't understand German) "Master of the
> World"). This would be a nice Klingon name, I think (if it isn't already
> used, there
> is some competition there). The nearest I could find is {'u'che'wI'} (the 
one
> who
> rules the universe - why be modest?). But I''ve got a problem : while
> {'u'che'} is
> clearly "to rule the universe" and <che'wI'> "the one who rules", is it
> acceptable
> to use {-wI'} to make a noun out of a verb which object is explicitly
> expressed?
> There is such an example in TKD : {HoS} power (n.), {ghaj} to possess (v.)
> thus
> {HoSghaj} (to possess power, to be powerful) which is a verb ; nothing seems
> to prevent {HoSghajwI'} (the powerful one).

I'm not sure what you mean by "explicitly expressed" in this context.  Be 
careful: the verb {HoSghaj} is apparently a noun-verb construct, but it is a 
verb of its own right, not *just* a compaction of the {HoS} and {ghaj}.  It is 
entirely separate.  (Besides, it's *possible*, though seemingly unlikely, that 
it's a verb-verb construct; {HoS} is also a verb.)

So let's take the example of "ruler of the universe."  "Ruler" is {che'wI'}.  
"Universe ruler" is {'u' che'wI'}.  This might also be translated as 
"universe's ruler," or "ruler of the universe."  You're not really taking the 
phrase {'u' che'} "he rules the universe" and adding {-wI'} to *all* of it, 
you're constructing it anew, with the separate words {'u'} and {che'wI'}.

Oh, you *can* combine them into one word, {'u'che'wI'}, but it's not necessary 
to do so.  In fact, it's probably easier to understand if you don't.  
IfItendtoleaveoutspacesfrommysentences, itgetsratherhardtoreadthem.  An 
exaggeration, yes, but it makes my point.

> A similar problem arises when I want to tell about my job. I'm a
> mathematician;
> so {mI'QeD} for "mathematics" would be acceptable (although a more precise
> equivalent would be "arithmetic", but this is not the point).

{mI'QeD} is not necessarily closer to "arithmetic" than "mathematics."  I 
don't see why {mI'QeD} cannot include other areas, like algebra, calculus, 
Fourier analysis, etc.

> I can't derive
> some-
> thing like {mI'QeDwI' jIH} since {mI'QeD} is a noun. Have I got to say
> something
> like {mI'QeD vIHaD}, which could mean I'm a student instead of a searcher?

Well, you could say {mI'QeD ghojmoHwI' jIH} "I am a number-science teacher."  
But you wouldn't want to say {mI'QeD jIH}, because this means "I am 
mathematics."

Another possibility: {mI'QeD tej jIH}.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97440.8

Back to archive top level