tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 09 22:40:09 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

compound nouns

I wrote:
>Even when you *are* combining nouns, try not to get carried away with
>"seamless" compounds -- anything that makes sense without spaces ought
>to make at least as much sense *with* them.

Holtej writes:
>*sigh* This is the second time recently I've heard you equate compound
>nouns with N-N constructions.  (Perhaps 'equate' is too strong...)  But I
>really feel they are different.  I think the clearest example of the
>potential differences is /'Iwghargh/, which describes a type of worm.
>Does this make at least as much sense as /'Iw ghargh/, as you suggest
>above?  I don't think so.  Compound nouns and N-N are not the same thing,
>you can't measure the acceptability of one by the acceptability of the
>other.  They have different purposes, different interpretations, and
>different rules.

I can't accept that position without further canon support.  The relevant
sections in TKD are small, so I'll quote them in their entirety:

TKD Section 3.2.1 Compound nouns:
>   Compound nouns consist of two or three nouns in a row,
> much like English _earthworm_ (_earth_ plus _worm_) or _password_
> (_pass_ plus _word_).  For example, {jolpa'} _transport room_ consists
> of {jol} _transport beam_ plus {pa'} _room_.

TKD Section 3.4 The noun-noun construction:
>   Some combinations of two (or more) nouns in a row are so
> common as to have become everyday words.  These are the
> compound nouns (as discussed in section 3.2.1).  In addition,
> it is possible to combine nouns in the manner of a compound
> noun to produce a new construct even if it is not a legitimate
> compound noun ("legitimate" in the sense that it would be
> found in a dictionary).
>   The translation of two nouns combined in this way, say
> N1-N2 (that is, noun 1 followed by noun #2), would be _N2
> of the N1_.  For example, {nuH} _weapon_ and {pegh} _secret_ combine
> to form {nuH pegh} _secret of the weapon_.  An alternate transla-
> tion would be _N1's N2_, in this case, _the weapons's secret_.  As
> discussed in section 3.3.4, this is the Klingon possessive
> construction for a noun possessed by another noun.

I'm willing to grant the expansion of "possessive" to "genitive" based
on examples like {peQ chem} and {may'Duj}.  I'm even willing to grant
the existence of compound nouns that aren't noun-noun constructions.
But I don't see any basis for *US* to be able to make a word such as
{'Iwghargh} with a meaning of anything except "blood's worm".  In fact,
there isn't explicit permission for us to make *any* new compound noun.
All we may do is put one noun after another "in the manner of a compound
noun."  We're apparently stretching the rules a bit when we run words
together without spaces.

You said:
>Compound nouns and N-N are not the same thing...

But TKD Section 3.4 says they are:  "These are the compound nouns."
The second paragraph tells us how to translate them:  "_N1's N2_."
Though you are both learned and skilled in the Klingon language,
I will take TKD's word over yours.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level