tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 03 11:18:23 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC (?):adverbial constructs

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "Thorwald Peeters" <[email protected]>

> Due to a joking reply I made to a post in the KIDC's forums, I wanted to
translate "The Order of the Chocolate Bat'leth" into Klingon.
> Doing this I ran into the problem that you can say {SuyDuj} merchant ship
and {jolpa'} transporter room,
> but you can't do the same with chocolate, although it is as much an
attribute of the noun as [transporter] is of [room].
>
> What would be the best way to name "chocolate bat'leth" in tlhIngan Hol?
>
> A few things I and Doom'er came up with are:
> {yuch betleH} using the noun noun device, which is flawed...
> {yuch 'oHbogh betleH'e'} where I had questions about {'oH} being a pronoun
and {-bogh} a verb suffix.
> This struck me as impossible...
>
> Is there no simple way to say [material][object] or
[object][of][material]?

This is one of those times when there IS a formula:

[material] [object]

[Material] and [object] are both nouns.

This really is an example of the noun-noun construction: the construction is
genetive, not just possessive.  Noun 1 modifies noun 2.

This is demonstrated most clearly in KGT, p. 75:

baS 'In
metal percussion instrument

Sop Hap 'In
wooden percussion instrument

DIr 'In
skin percussion instrument

There are many more examples of this in KGT and other sources.

However, we use this kind of genetive-but-not-possessive constuction even
when not referring to something's composition, in phrases like /tlhIngan
Hol/ "Klingon language."  This needn't be interpreted as "language possessed
by Klingons."

SuStel
Stardate: 4256.8

Back to archive top level