tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 30 00:57:43 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch, et al.
On Thu, 29 Sep 1994, Terry Donnelly wrote:
> R.B Franklin <[email protected]> writes:
> > I think all of Terry's examples of N-N constructions were valid.
Umm... Looking back at your examples, I need to retract my statement
somewhat. I'm afraid I disagree with your example {Hoch taj}.
I feel {Hoch taj} means "the knife of everyone" or "everybody's knife"; and
{tajmey Hoch} would mean "all of the knives".
> When you deal with a noun used attributively, you shouldn't get
> too hung up on the English translation for the word as a noun,
> but instead deal with the concept behind the noun. In the case
> of {Hoch}, for example, the concept is "inclusiveness". When
> {Hoch} functions as a simple noun, this concept is translated as
> "everything, everyone"; when it functions attributively, the
> concept is conveyed by the English adjective "all (of)".
I think we disagree here. I think N-N constructions have a primarily
genitive meaning, showing possession. Secondarily, I think N-N
constructions have an attributive meaning. But I don't think N-N
constructions cause the first noun to become an adjective.
To me "all" (the noun) and "all" (the adjective) are not exactly the same.
"All" (the adjective) is real similar to the word "every", as in "all
knives/every knife". I don't think Klingon even has a word for
"all/every". I wouldn't expect to find one either, it would make a lousy
verb.
> I think the attributive use of the N-N construction is beyond
> argument: it's obviously being used this way by Okrand himself
> (cf. the phrase {peQ chem} in TKD). Since {Hoch} is listed in
> TKD as a noun, I see no reason why it shouldn't fall under the
> same rules for attributive N-N constructions as any other noun
> (i.e. to express "all", {Hoch} comes before the modified noun);
> and the same goes for {nuq, 'Iv, latlh}, et al.
My instincts tell me {peQ chem} literally means "field of magnetism".
English on the other hand, does have the adjectival form, "magnetic"
which is more commonly used.
> If you claim that {Hoch} meaning "all" should come *after* the
> modified noun, you have a lot of questions to answer: Why does
> the N-N construction suddenly reverse its usual interpretation
> when {Hoch} is involved? Where is the canonical evidence for
> this? Is {Hoch} a special case, or are there other nouns used
> attributively that follow this pattern? If it's special, why is
> it special? If there are other nouns that follow this inverted
> pattern, how can we recognize them and distinguish them from the
> nouns that follow the usual N-N pattern (where attributives come
> first)?
IMHO, {Hoch} is really no differenty than any other noun. The only
cannonical use of {Hoch} I'm aware of is {no'lIj Hoch yabDu'} which
corresponds exactly to my understanding. I see it as meaning "the brains
(of) all/every one (of) your ancestors". How do you translate {no'lIj
Hoch} by itself?
> Terry
yoDtargh