tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 30 19:28:56 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch, et al.
According to Terry Donnelly:
>
> R.B Franklin <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > 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...
>
> > I think all of Terry's examples of N-N constructions were
> > valid...
>
> Exactly! I would express this thought in this way: the Klingon
> N-N construction indicates that the first noun modifies the
> meaning of the second noun in some way, and that the possessive
> N-N construction and the attributive N-N construction are both
> subsets of this more general concept...
> 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 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.
Okay, since you used the word "obvious", I figured I should
look through the canon I've transcribed to find examples which
either reinforce or deny your conclusions about {Hoch}.
In ST5:
Klaa: nuHmey Hoch HISeHmoH (All weapons to my control.)
Woman: SoH Dun law' qIbDaq SuvwI'pu Hoch Dun puS. (You would be
the greatest warrior in the galaxy.)
PK:
targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabdu' tIn puS. (Your targ
has more brains than all your ancestors put together.) [Note
that the translation says that "all" refers to "ancestors".]
These are all the examples of the use of {Hoch} in a noun-noun
construction in ST1, ST3, ST5, CK, PK and the Hallmark
commercial. I've temporarily misplaced my transcription of ST6,
so this is not quite an exhaustive search, but so far, not one
example shows {Hoch} first. All of them show {Hoch} following
the noun it "modifies" by your explanation.
> 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?
The logical problem here is that you have self-proclaimed that
which is "usual".
> Where is the canonical evidence for
> this?
See above. Three examples say {Hoch} follows. None say it
preceeds.
> Is {Hoch} a special case, or are there other nouns used
> attributively that follow this pattern?
The reason you consider it to be a special case is that you
have consistently ignored Okrand's explicit description of the
noun-noun construction in favor of your own interpretation that
the first noun modifies the second one. While this is indeed
true in the vast majority of cases, the simple truth is that
this was never the rule by which Okrand controlled which noun
came first in a noun-noun construction. He used "A's B" or "B
of A", and following THAT rule, "All of them" should be {chaH
Hoch} and not the reverse.
It doesn't matter if it makes linguistic sense. Klingon is full
of things that intentionally VIOLATE linguistic sense. Get used
to it.
> If it's special, why is
> it special?
Once again, it is only special because it violates YOUR rule,
not Okrand's.
> 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)?
Simple: "A's B" or "B of A".
> On the other hand, if you accept the attributive usage of the N-N
> construction and accept that {Hoch}, et al., as simple nouns fall
> into this same pattern, then there are no awkward questions to be
> answered.
Actually, there is one: Why does every example of the use of
{Hoch} in a noun-noun construction in cannon go in the other
direction?
> No canonical examples of Klingon are contradicted by
> this interpretation, and the logic of the grammar (as shown in
> the existing canon, implicitly if not explicitly) is preserved.
Once again, see above. Three examples in canon. All violate
your rule. None violate Okrand's rule. Okrand wrote the
language.
> > yoDtargh
>
> Terry
charghwI'