tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 02 13:23:51 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
}} Re: noun-noun
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: }} Re: noun-noun
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 95 13:23:51 EDT
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
> >([email protected])
> Subject: Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
>
> >Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 09:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: "Elizabeth C. Hoyt" <[email protected]>
>
> >Ok, I think you finally got this pounded through my thick forehead
> >yesterday afternoon. N1 possesses N2. You're talking about a type of N2.
> >Do not confuse N1 for an adjective.
>
> >So {paq ngaSwI'} works for book container, but NOT {nav paq} for a book
> >made of paper.
>
> See my previous post. I don't think it has to be possession, and I don't
> have evidence that "book made of paper" CAN'T be "nav paq". I was just
> giving you my opinion that it *may* not work.
The guideline we have is that noun-noun parallels what English
does with "X's Y" or "Y of X". Often this is possession, but
sometimes it is a broader association. Magnetism's field, or
field of magnetism makes sense whether or not the field is
owned at all. The medicine's transferer or the transferer of
medicine makes sense as well. "Paper's book" or "book of paper"
sounds more like a blank book than like a paperback novel. It
could be a notepad.
For "paperback", I'd go for {paq tun}.
> ~mark
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |