tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 27 11:07:17 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: tlhoQ vIjangbogh



I said:

>>You're confusing the compound noun construction (TKD 3.2.1), which is what
>>{jolpa'} is, with the N-N construction (TKD 3.4), which is used for
>>possession by nouns.  Okrand doesn't explicity provide a way to interpret
>>the compound noun construction.

And Guido#1 responded:

>I would urge you to reread TKD 3.4. My reading of the first paragraph gives
>me the impression that the noun-noun construction and the compound are no
>different semantically. N-N is translated N1's N2, or N2 of the N1. But "of"
>does not always carry possessive connotations, even in English. Think of
>something like "a coat of many colors".

I am fully aware of the ambiguity of "of" in English.  A careful re-read of 
TKD 3.3.4 and 3.4 leads me to believe that Okrand's intended use
of the English "of the" is limited to the possessive interpretation.  Here's
why.  In TKD 3.3.4, the paragraph that starts "To indicate that one
noun is the possessor...." provides the alternative interpretation of
"enemy's weapon" as "weapon of the enemy," which is still the 
possessive interpretation. Then he refers the reader to 3.4.

In most examples of N-N construction, 3.4, Okrand's translations 
are genitive.  In all of them, the original Klingon can be seen to be
clearly genitive.  He never, for example, give N-N as a partitive
construction: 
"one of the boys" *{loDHompu' wa'} (notwithstanding the fact that we 
have a differenet method of interpreting {N #} ).  

>If you see a distinctive pattern of semantic differences between simple N-N
>constructions (the ones with spaces between the nouns) and the compounds
(N-N
>constructions with the nouns just scrunched together), then enlighten me,
>please.

My pleasure.  And, I will follow Okrand's distinction of compounds, from
Noun-
Noun, by calling the first "compound" and the second "N1-N2," instead
of lumping them together as N-N as you do.  

> I myself have not been able to notice it. If you can give me another
>perspective, then please go right ahead. But, use specific examples. That's
>the key.

Most compounds Okrand lists in TKD involve a noun and a verb, so these
I will disregard.  Many of the compounds Okrand gives are in fact
possessive, which is one interpretation of "of the."  But there are some
others, a few of which I'll point out.  The thing to notice is, that when
the N1-N2 construction is used (TKD 3.4), it's always possessive.  
If it's a compound noun (TKD 3.3.4), it's not necessarily possessive.

---Compound Nouns---

1. {'ejyo'waw'}      starbase

If we take compound nouns as N1-N2, this should be "military base of
Starfleet."
But that's not what it is; it's just a star base.  If I were to coin
{Hovwaw'}, would
you think I meant "base of the star" (with the possessive interpretation)?
 Or 
just the base *on* the star?

2. {ro'qegh'Iwchab}  rokeg blood pie

A compound used in a compound.  Looking first at {'Iwchab}, this
can't possibly be a pie belonging to blood.  It's a pie made
from blood, like your "coat of many colors" above.  Looking at
the whole word, it's not a blood pie belonging to a rokeg, but
a blood pie made of a rokeg.

3. {tepqengwI'}   cargo carrier

A compound of "cargo" and "carrier." But, the carrier does
not belong to the cargo; it's not "cargo's carrier." It's not
possessive.

There are more examples, but I'll stop.  The point here is, that 
compound nouns are not restricted to the possessive 
construction.  I believe, however, that the N1-N2 construction
is limited to a possessive interpretation.

---N1-N2---

Some N1-N2 examples from TKD include words which we
don't have as independent nouns.  So, I'll not include
them here.  (Such as {chem} in {peQ chem}).

1. {reghuluS 'Iwghargh}    Bloodworm belonging to Regulus
2. tlhIngan wo'  Empire of the Klingon (species)
3. tlhIngan Hol    language of the Klingon (species)
4. 'orghen rojmab    peace treaty of Organian
   (note it's not peace's treaty, but peace treaty)

et cetera.

What I propose is that the N1-N2 construction is solely
possessive.  In cases like {tlhIngan Hol}, we don't 
translate the possessive, but we all know it's possessive 
(taking {tlhIngan} as a generic plural for "species," which
I don't think is all that far-fetched, given that plural
markers are optional in cases where there's no
ambiguity).  

Compound nouns, on the other hand, have a greater
freedom of expression, similar to the different meanings
provided for by the English "of the." Yes, the possessive
is one possible interpretation.  But as we saw above, there
are other readings possible for compound nouns in 
Klingon, such as {rojmab}.  This is the systematic
semantic difference between the two constructions.

I have tried to avoid techincal terms for clarity, since
many of the readers here do not have linguistic
backgrounds.

I believe this confusion exists because Okrand does not
specifically state that compounds receive a possessive
interpretation.  He just says they exist, and doesn't provide
a systematic method of interpretation.  Remember way
back when, when a fellow on this list took the Klingon
name {nachHegh}?  Would you really have proposed that
this should be interpreted as "death's head"?  But, 
{nach Heghna'} (with {-na'} there to identify {Hegh} as
a noun) would certainly be possessive, for instance,
if we were trying to refer to the (definite) Grim Reaper's
head.

This is way too long already, but I wanted to 
be rather thorough, and as clear as possible.

--Holtej



Back to archive top level