tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 14 03:23:58 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Passing Time
- From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Passing Time
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 14:23:13 -0700
> Sorry to tread into the grammarian's more appropriate turf, but I just
>find {mu' tlhIngan} jarring and feel a need to nip this one in the bud.
>{tlhIngan} is a noun. It is not an adjectival verb. We may not all agree on
>which verbs can be used adjectivally, but we ALL agree that nouns in general
>and this noun in particular is NEVER an adjectival verb. That means you have
>a noun-noun construction meaning, "the word's Klingon" or "the Klingon of the
>word", both of which are waaay off base.
>
> It's great to see you write so much so often and so often well. Just
>don't carry our English tendency to use "Klingon" as an adjective over to
>using "tlhIngan" adjectivally. Okay?
>
>charghwI'
<thwap-thwap-thwap!>
qab! Ha'DIbaH qab!
If you are going to tread like that, at least tread *well*. While
explaining why mu' tlhIngan doesn't work, you fail to give the poor
person the *correct* answer.
It is, of course, tlhIngan mu', literally "Klingons' word" or "word
of Klingon(s)". This is completely analogous to "tlhIngan Hol",
which is "language of Klingon(s)". I suppose if one wanted, one
could say: tlhIngan Hol mu' -- Klingon language's word (or, to be
ultra-literal: word of the language of the Klingon(s)). We presume
that, yes, noun-nouns can be daisy-chained like this.
--Krankor