tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 28 10:32:15 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Compounds vs. N1-N2
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Compounds vs. N1-N2
- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 22:28:15 EDT
This is a rather long post, in two parts; first, I reply to
specific comments from Guido. Afterwards I reorganize and
restate my arguments, in a way I hope will be clear. I
thought it important to keep all this information in
one message, but putting together a coherent argument
forced me to break away from the "you said/I said" scheme.
Guidovo':
>I must conclude that compounds are simply shortenings of N-Ns due to
frequent
>usage, having no significant semantic distinction.
I think your conclusions are premature. Is this a discussion, or
a lecture, Guido?
>>1. {'ejyo'waw'} star base
>
>>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?
>
>You are concerning yourself too much with literal translations. "Starbase"
is
>an English idiom.
I'm afraid I don't follow you. Are you complaining about my example
{Hovwaw'}? If so, it was just an example. The real point here is with
{'ejyo'waw'}, which definitely does mean "star base" (the English
meaning of "star base" aside). Now, and this is crucial, the meaning of
{'ejyo'waw'} does not follow in any meaningful way from the combination
of the meanings of its parts. The meaning of {'ejyo'waw'} is not determined
in the same manner as an N1-N2 construction such as {'ejyo' waw'}
would. This was my point. And, I can't disregard {'ejyo'waw'} simply
because Okrand provides a definition for the word. If this example
doesn't suit you, then I refer you to the comprehensive list of
these constructions at the end of this post.
>You cannot justify such a
>difference in Klingon N-N and compounds by interpreting {'ejyo'waw'} as
>"military base of starfleet" when Okrand just translated it as "starbase".
I am definitely NOT interpreting {'ejyo'waw'} as "military base of
starfleet." I am using this (incorrect) translation to demonstrate that
compound nouns and N1-N2 behave differently. If your objection is to my
using a word created by Okrand, well, would you rather I used something from
_Hamlet_? If you can't accept my use of TKD words in my arguments, then why
did you ask for examples?
>Klingons are allowed to generalize the meanings of both the elements of this
>compound when putting them together.
Sounds to me like, this is the point I'm trying to make. If compounds were
bound by the same princples of interpretation as N1-N2, then Klingons would
not be "allowed to generalize the meanings of both of the elements of this
compound."
>I myself believe you are observing a
>difference between N-N and compound just because the difference exists in
>English. Please consider this idea, at least.
I am not a layman, Guido. I am a student of linguistics, working on my
Ph.D. at Georgetown. I am aware of the danger of basing an analysis of
one language on knowledge of another.
>>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.
>
>You certainly can't justify this, because we have {woj choHwI'} and {Hergh
>QaywI'}. According to your interpretation of what a N-N is, these must be
>interpreted "transformer belonging to the radiation" and "transferal device
>belonging to the medicine", resp.
Non sequitur, my friend. I was making a point about compounds, and you
countered with an argument about N1-N2. All this proves is that
you didn't follow my argument. (I'll discuss the specific point
you raise below).
Now, instead of just saying "you can't justify this," how about trying,
"how do you account for this, given your position?" It's a lot less
insulting and arrogant, and will foster discussion, instead of
proclaiming you position as "correct." If you want to convince me,
you've got to enter into a discussion with me, not disregard me
out-of-hand.
>Anyhow, this argument is rather unproductive because no real semantic
>ambiguity of even near-disastrous proportions will arise from this. The most
>sensible meaning of a N-N/compound will emerge. {Hergh QaywI'} will only be
>thought of as a "thing for transfering medicine (from a container to the
>blood)" and not "a transferal device which the medicine owns" because the
>latter is semantic garbage.
It's pragmatic garbage; it makes perfect semantic sense. It's
completely understandable, even though it's unlikely. Semantic
"garbage" is something along the lines of Chomsky's "colorless
green ideas."
>Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
---Let's try again---
Guido challenged me to demonstrate a semantic difference
between compound nouns (TKD 3.2.1) and the noun-noun
construction (TKD 3.4). The basis for this distinction,
I believe, stems from the fact that Okrand never provides
a method for interpreting the compound noun construction.
He does, however, provide a means of interpreting N1-N2.
>From TKD p.25: "to indicate that one noun is the
possessor of another noun...no suffix is used. Instead,
the two nouns are said in the order possessor-possessed.
[...] This construction is also used for phrases
translated by _of the_ in English...." Okrand's example
is "weapon of the enemy." This is the genitive use of
"of" in English, simply another way to say "enemy's weapon."
In this paragraph, Okrand establishes that N1-N2 is used
for possessives. He also introduces the ambiguity which
gives rise to this discussion by presenting an unqualified
"of the" as a translation. Yes, "of the" is one way of
expressing genitive case in English. But, English
allows many other interpretations of "of the," which
Guido has latched onto.
Going through TKD, I find the following N1-N2 constructions
used by Okrand:
1. Hergh QaywI' (addendum)
2. reghuluS 'Iwghargh
3. telun Hovtay'
4. tlhIngan Hol (appendix)
5. tlhIngan Hubbeq (addendum)
6. tlhIngan wo'
7. woj choHwI' (addendum)
8. 'orghen rojmab
(I do not include CK and PK as sources, since there's
no written version to verify distinctions, except for
that little PK card, which is chock-full of typos.)
Can these be interpreted using the convention established
by Okrand in 3.4, i.e., the N1-N2 section? I think so.
Okrand provides two possible translations: "N2 of the N1,"
and "N1's N2." He then says, "this is the Klingon
possessive construction for a noun possessed by another
noun." Let's look at each noun construct above.
The first one was presented by Guido as apparent
counter-evidence to my argument. I believe, however,
that this can still be interpreted as a genitive
construction: "medicine's transferer." Not
pharoah's transferer (a camel). This phrase refers
consistently to "hypo," which is the translation given.
Guido would have me disregard the obvious analysis
of the parts of this construct, in favor of the
translation presented by Okrand. We don't translate
the genitive into English, because it's
superfluous. That doesn't mean it's not genitive
in Klingon.
Examples (2), (3) and (8) are obvious. "Regulan's
bloodworm," "Tellun's Star System," and "Organian's
Peace Treaty." As before, the genitive is not necessary
in the English translation.
Examples 4,5, and 6 pattern alike. I believe "Klingon"
can be interpreted as a generic plural, referring
to the species as a whole and not to a particular
Klingon indivudual. Thus, "Klingon (species)'s
language, Defense Force, Empire." Seems to me to work
as a genitive.
This leaves (7). {woj choHwI'}. "Radiation's changer."
This is similar to (1). I don't believe the possessive
construction need be interpreted by the narrow
parameter of "ownership." Rather, it is possessive
in the sense of genitive, which these cases clearly
fall into.
I've shown how all the examples of N1-N2 from TKD
can be analyzed by the narrow interpretation of
TKD 3.4 as possession, in the sense of genitive,
rather than as the much broader possibilites for
"of the" which English allows (such as the partitive).
Now, my arguments are based on a difference in
interpretation between N1-N2 and compound nouns. Let's
look at examples of compound nouns from TKD, and see if
there's any difference (I'll omit all the -ngan's):
9. cha'pujqut: dilithium ¦ crystal
10. DIvI'may'Duj: federation, organization ¦ battle cruiser
11. Ho''oy': tooth ¦ ache, pain, sore
12. jolpa': transport beam ¦ room
13. mangghom: soldier ¦ group, party
14. may'Duj: battle ¦ ship, vessel
15. mu'ghom: word ¦ group, party
16. mu'tlhegh: word ¦ line, rope
17. puqloD: child, offspring ¦ male, man
18. pu'beH: phaser ¦ rifle
19. pu'beq: phaser ¦ crew, crewman
20. pu'HIch: phaser ¦ handgun
21. quprIp: elder ¦ council, assembly
22. QeDpIn: science ¦ boss
23. 'Iwghargh: blood ¦ serpent, worm
24. SuyDuj: merchant ¦ ship, vessel
25. tepqengwI': cargo, luggage ¦ one/thing which is/does carry
26. veQDuj: garbage ¦ ship, vessel
27. yIntagh: life ¦ lung
28. 'ejyo'waw': Starfleet ¦ military base
29. rojmab: peace ¦ treaty
30. Haqtaj: surgery ¦ knife, dagger
31. juHqo': home ¦ world, realm
32. nItlhpach: finger ¦ claw
33. ro'qegh'Iwchab: rokeg ¦ blood ¦ pie
34. tlhIlHal: mineral ¦ source
35. Hubbeq: defense ¦ crew, crewman
36. veSDuj: war ¦ ship, vessel
37. 'oy'naQ: ache, pain, sore ¦ cain, staff
(I did not include any that did not make sense as compounds,
even though there was a possible compound interpretation.)
Pardon my thoroughness. Now, I'm willing to concede that
many of these pattern with the genitives. That's fine.
But, if there are any that cannot be seen to pattern
with the genitives, then that's interesting. I believe
there are:
17. puqloD: child, offspring ¦ male, man
18. pu'beH: phaser ¦ rifle
20. pu'HIch: phaser ¦ handgun
22. QeDpIn: science ¦ boss
23. 'Iwghargh: blood ¦ serpent, worm
27. yIntagh: life ¦ lung
28. 'ejyo'waw': Starfleet ¦ military base
29. rojmab: peace ¦ treaty
37. 'oy'naQ: ache, pain, sore ¦ cain, staff
We may argue about the relevance of some of these examples,
such as claiming that there's some unknown system
behind {puqloD}. Fine. There are enough others.
You (Guido) may argue that it's inappropriate to investigate
the compound nature of these words, since there's an
independent translation given by Okrand (such as "life
support system" for {yIntagh}). But, I think it's
necessary to look at these words, to learn about
the process of interpreting compounds, since Okrand
doesn't explicitly provide the means to do so.
I won't discuss the specific examples listed immediately
above. I believe a cursory glance at the list shows that
the genitive construction does not account for their
interpretation.
Okay, I'll discuss one, just for good measure. (18),
{pu'beH}, "phaser ¦ rifle." It's not possible as either
"rifle of the phaser" (N2 of the N1), or "phaser's rifle"
(N1's N2).
What can we learn from this? Simply, that compound nouns
are not bound by the same constraints on interpretation
that the N1-N2 construction is, namely the possessive
(genitive) interpretation which Okrand provides in TKD
3.4 for N1-N2.
It may have been a historical process, but linguistic
change in a language is not arbitrary; there's usually
a driving force behind change, and semantics is one
possibility. I submit that the compound noun construct
developed from the N1-N2 under pressure to establish
N1-N2 as a purely genitive construction. Since no
similar constraint exists for compounds, such as
prohibiting the genitive, some frequent compounds which
maintain the genitive derivation did in fact become
compounds, probably by analogy with the N1-N2 -> compound
change. But, no non-genitive constructions
persist as N1-N2.
Lest Guido accuse me of lecturing, as I did him above,
all this is speculative. My opinion was requested,
and this is it. I'd love to argue further about
these interpretations.
--Holtej