tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 12 09:20:54 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nom ghel, nom jang

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

From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, David Trimboli wrote:
> > From: "Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar)" <[email protected]>
> > Consider these two English sentences:
> >
> > The ship is a noun.
> > "Ship" is a noun.
> >
> > (In English, it's also a verb, but that's not relevant here.)
> >
> > In spoken English, the only difference between these two sentences is
the
> > definite article on "ship."  The first sentence is false (or
nonsensical),
> > the second is true.
>
> I don't think that's entirely true.  The first sentence doesn't make
> sense, even in English.

That's what I said.  What's not entirely true?  Grammatically, the first
sentence works, but it doesn't make semantic sense.

> "The ship is a noun".  Which ship?  The use of
> the definite article indicates a particular instance.

Although I don't have a specific reference handy, I will point out that
Holtej wrote a couple of excellent HolQeD articles about partitive and
existential phrases in Klingon.

> The equivalent
> English sentence would be "The word ship is a noun" (hmm, not sure
> where/if there's punctuation in there).

According to THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE, by Strunk and White, when discussing a
word as a word, the word should be italicized.  That is obviously not an
option here; I don't know what the custom is when italics are not available.

> If I were speaking about the word "ship", I would never say "the ship".  I
> would either say ONLY "ship" or the phrase "the word 'ship'".

You're analyzing the English; I was analyzing Klingon by illustrating in
English, trying to point out how Klingon likely differs from English in this
regard.

> > Now, you can use the same punctuation trick you use in written English
to
> > disambiguate the Klingon:
> >
> > DIp 'oH <Duj>'e',
> >
> > but what you say hasn't changed.  The lack of articles in Klingon makes
this
> > ambiguity exist where it can't in English.
>
> This I would agree with, but again, it works either a) by context (only
> way to indicate this when speaking) or b) due to the fact that you've
> employed a visual marker to the sentence to indicate that you are
> referencing the word, not the concept.

I disagree with point a).  When I say, "'Ship' is a noun," I enunciate
"ship" in such a way as to set it apart from the sentence.  It *might* be
possible to do the same with Klingon in some cases.

> > > then one can still see it as a noun-noun construction:
> > >
> > > like {qImla' pong} "kimla's name",
> > > {Duj mu'} "the word of ship" or more fluent "the word for <ship>"
> > > [the word that stands for the idea of "ship"]
> >
> > Klingon noun-noun constructions are genitive, not appositive.  I don't
think
> > this works, either.
>
> I would say this is how you would specify the concept exactly.  You have
> the concept of "ship"  as /Duj/.  What does that possess?  It possesses a
> word that represents it.  /Duj mu'/ "the word of a/the ship".  I think
> this works perfectly.
>
> One comparable phrase I can think of is /tlhIngan Hol/.  It's not a
> perfect match, because /tlhIngan/ references a being, and we are
> comfortable with the idea of beings possessing things, even if they are
> abstract, like "language" (can a being really "possess" a language?),
> whereas the phrase /Duj mu'/ requires us to think about how an inanimate
> object might "possess" an abstract concept like a word.

The noun-noun construction handles much more than mere possession: it is the
Klingon genitive.  Consider {baS 'In} "metal drum," from KGT.  The metal
does not possess the drum.  Noun 1 modifies the meaning of Noun 2, specifies
what sort of Noun 2 you're talking about.  {nuH pegh} "secret of the
weapon," from TKD, which can be described as possession, also works this
way: you specify which secret you're talking about with {nuH}.  There are
plenty of non-possessive noun-noun constructions in canon.  {tlhIngan Hol}
is one such phrase.

However, something like {mu' Duj} or {Duj mu'} has the very same problem we
had with {DIp 'oH Duj'e'}: there's no reason to think you're talking about
"ship" as a word, rather than as its meaning.  Yes, you might argue that
{Duj mu'} is a noun-noun that specifies exactly what kind of {mu'} you're
talking about, but what exactly is a "ship word"?  A word that looks like a
ship?

English clearly uses apposition when it says things like "the word 'ship'"
(you can remove either "the word" or "ship" from the sentence and the
sentence still means the same thing), and the way people on the list combine
{mu'} with whatever word they're talking about works the same way.  We
should be wary of this sort of thing.

> We do have the word /'oS/ that could be pressed into service if we wanted
> to be REALLY explicit:  /Duj 'oSbogh mu'/ "The word that represents the
> ship" (Oh, hrm, does /'oS/ mean "represent" in terms of legal
> representation?)

Agreed.

SuStel
Stardate 4116.6

Back to archive top level