tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 23 01:10:39 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch, et al.
On Thu, 22 Sep 1994, William H. Martin wrote:
> > >>> Hoch yuQmeyvam boghaj 'ach *Europa*
>
> charghwI':
> > >> We have come to the concensus on this list (I believe) that
> > >> this is better stated as {yuQmeyvam Hoch},
>
> ~mark:
> > >> That concensus is supported by canon. See the insult in PK:
> > > "targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lIj Hoch yabDu' tIn puS" for "Your
> > > targh has a bigger brain than all your ancestors put together."
>
> Terry:
> > I'm suspicious of this concensus. I've seen it both ways,
> > {Hoch} + N and N + {Hoch}, with the former a little more common.
> > The canonical example unfortunately is not conclusive: it could
> > just as easily be parsed {nolIj (Hoch yabDu')}, "all the brains
> > of your ancestors" or {(no'lIj Hoch) yabDu'}, "the brains of all
> > your ancestors".
I think Okrand recognizes the use of multiple genitive (possessive)
constructions. He uses {tlhIngan may' taj} "(the knife) of (battle) of
(the Klingon [species])" for "Klingon battle knife". Similarly {no'lIj
Hoch yabDu'} would mean "(the brains) of (all) of (your ancestors)". In
other words, he sometimes uses a N-N-N construction.
> Since Okrand has described noun-noun constructions as being
> parsed either as "A's B" or as "B of A", then I have to read
> this one as either "The brains of all of your ancestors", or as
> "Your ancestors' everybody's brains" or some combination of the
> two. "All of your ancestors' brains", for example. None of
> these yield "All of the brains of your ancestors."
>
> > True, {Hoch yuQmey}, "the planets of
> > everything", is an odd construction, but so is {yuQmey Hoch},
> > "everything of the planets".
Citing Okrand's N-N-N constructions, I'd use {Hovtay'vam yuQmey Hoch}
for "(all) of (the planets) of (this star system)" or more simply {yuQmeyvam
Hoch} "(all) of (these planets)".
> > > I don't see the void of a word for "inside" to be quite as
> > > linguistically challenging as the void for the adjective or
> > > question word "which", as in "Which one of the shiny helmets
> > > should I choose?"
> >
> > The tape CK contains the phrase {nuq mI'lIj, tera'ngan}. It's
> > translated on the tape as "What is your number, Terran?", but
> > this can't be right.
> >
> > Captain Krankor, et al., have shown that {nuq} and {'Iv} are
> > pronouns, in which case, I'd expect "What is your number?" to
> > be rendered {mI'lIj nuq} or {mi'lIj 'oH nuq'e'}. The conclusion
> > is that {nuq mI'lIj} is a noun-noun phrase.
I think the distinction between "which" and "what" is not really all that
large, and I don't think it is an insurmountable problem. To me, "which"
indicates one from a particular group, while "what" means one from all
conceivable possibilities. I think you can semantically distinguish the
two in Klingon.
I think you could use {nuq mIvmey boch ghomvo' vIwIv} (What do I choose
from this group of shiny helmets.) for "Which shiny helmet should I
choose." Likewise, you could use {'Iv qama'pu' ghomvo' DaHoH 'e'
vISaHbe'} (I don't care whom you kill from this group of prisoners) for
"I don't care which prisoner you kill."
> At any rate, it has long been my contention that the Klingon
> language does not simply use pronouns for "to be", but instead
> begins with the basic, "me, Tarzan" approach to statements of
> being and has later embellished it with verbal suffixes on the
> pronoun. Meanwhile, if you are comfortable with "me, Tarzan",
> that's a short step to, "Jane, woman". No pronoun there. Just
> two nouns. The implication is that they are IN APPOSITION,
> MWAAAHAAAHAAHAAA!
>
> tlhIngan jIH. tlhIngan Holtej. nuq mIlIj? Catch my drift? The
> language is often expanded out to {nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'}, but it
> doesn't NEED to be. This is my opinion, not the consensus of
> the list, which will be undoubtably proven by the responses
> this will certainly inspire.
I think pronouns are an exception, because they seem to have a verbal
usage. {tlIngan jIH} is correct, but I would use {tlhIngan 'oH Holtej'e'}.
Why are pronouns different than nouns and "question words" like {nuq}
& {'Iv}? I dunno, but TKD clearly indicates that they are.
> > Moreover, as I noted in my letter in HolQeD 3:1, the N-N phrase,
> > in addition to showing possession, is the regular way of rendering
> > nouns as adjectivals (while not stated explicitly in TKD, this usage
> > is followed by many writers, including Okrand himself).
>
> While it is true that the possessor position modifies the
> possessed position, much as an adjective does, I don't think it
> has been proven that, aside from other considerations, any noun
> you wish to use as an adjectival goes first. There are other
> ways to get to the same result in the non-controversial cases
> that won't get you there in the controversial cases.
In my experience, from observing different foreign languages, there is a
large grey area between using an attributive (adjectival) construction
and using a genitive (possesive) construction. Some languages lean
towards a genitive construction (Spanish: vista del rio "view of the
river"); some lean towards an adjectival construction (Russian: rechnoy
vid "river view")
I think all of Terry's examples of N-N constructions were valid.
Arguably, you could say {naghtaj} (stone-knife) instead of {nagh taj}
(knife of stone). But I think Okrand seems to use N-N genitive
constructions more often than compound noun attributive constructions.
Example: {tlhIngan may' taj} instead of {tlhIngan may'taj}. This leads
me to believe that Klingon N-N constructions lean more towards a
"possessive-attributive" meaning than just simple possession. (I hope
I'm making myself reasonably clear because, I'm really having a hard time
conveying this subtle concept. {{:-) )
> > -- Terry
> charghwI'
yoDtargh