tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 10 23:35:24 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 20:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Mon, 7 Aug 1995, ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
> Were it not for the {N V-wI'} examples, I would agree. But because TKD
> calls N-N the "Klingon possessive construction" and I don't think
> "radiation's changer" makes sense as a "possessive" or even as a
> "genitive", I think my proposed explanation is appropriate.
Despite Okrand saying N-N constructions are used to indicate possession,
his usage of the construction indicates that this discription is not
entirely accurate. I would call it a genitive because it not only
indicates possession, it can also indicate relation. Similarly, he
inaccurately calls {-'e'} a topic prefix, when it actually indicates focus.
> >> {QIt Hergh Qaybogh jan'e' yInob.} Do you have any problems with this?
> >
> >No.
>
> (Aha! You fell for my clever trap!) This sentence has the same ambiguity
> as {QIt Hergh QaywI' yInob} would if {-wI'} worked the way I propose, so my
> so-called extension of the language apparently isn't the major ambiguity
> source you keep claiming it is.
In {QIt Hergh Qaybogh jan'e' yInob}, {QIt} modifies {Qay}. In {QIt Hergh
QaywI' yInob}, {QIt} modifies {nob}. That is how I interpret Sec. 6.7.
> >Still, the point about adverbials is that you have no
> >justification for applying them to nominalized verbs. Face it,
> >you are applying an adverbial to a NOUN. Once a verb gets
> >{-wI'} applied to it, that word is no longer a verb. It is a
> >noun, and if you try to apply an adverbial to it, you are
> >simply wrong.
> >
> >Deal with it.
jIQochbe'chu'.
> On the face of it, you're absolutely correct. TKD does consistently say
> that {-wI'} turns verbs into nouns. However, I HAVE found at least an
> implication that the verb MAY have an object! Section 3.2.2, page 20,
> mentions
>
> TKD> ...{baHwI'} "gunner", which consists of the verb
> TKD> {baH} "fire (a torpedo)" plus {-wI'} "one who does."
> TKD> Thus {baHwI'} is literally "one who fires [a torpedo]."
I think you are misreading that. I think he is defining the meaning of
"fire", to distinguish the word from "one who fires [an employee]".
> For the benefit of anyone who has tuned in late, I will restate my
> position. Certain apparent noun-noun phrases in canon are of the form
> {noun verb-wI'}. The way I interpret the noun-noun construction, these
> phrases exceed the reasonable bounds of "possession." I propose that the
> type 9 verb suffix {-wI'} actually operates on sentences rather than on
> verbs alone. It simply makes more sense to me to state that {woj choHwI'}
> is a noun which means "thing which changes radiation" instead of a "changer
> that 'belongs to' radiation".
I think you are interpreting the meaning of N-N constructions too
narrowly. I don't think they are limited to simple possession. I also
don't think {-wI'} affects the rest of the sentence. Sec. 3.2.2. says,
"A noun formed by adding -wI' to a verb is a regular noun." I think
{-wI'} only affects the verb stem it is attached to, not to any other
words in the sentence.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
yoDtargh