tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 31 17:02:37 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} -mo' and N1's N2
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 17:02:37 -0400
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:02:01 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Elizabeth C. Hoyt" <[email protected]>
>okay, let's see if I've got this straight:
>jIwuQmo' juHDaq vIjaH.
>Because I had a headache, I went home.
jIjaH would be better, since "jaH" in this sentence has no object. juH is
not its object, since it's got -Daq on it, so it's a locative complement,
not an object.
>*Tylenolmo' 'oy' nachwIj 'e' mev.
>Due to Tylenol, my head stopped hurting.
Well, it *would* be right... but you're using a sentence-as-subject
construction, and Klingon doesn't have that. 'e' can only be used as the
*object* of another sentence...
Well, I suppose this can be read as "[it] stopped my head's hurting", but
that's an awfully convoluted sentence... it would probably mean that
something else caused my head to stop hurting, and it did so because of the
tylenol (maybe I paid someone with tylenol to make my head stop hurting).
You could say "'oy' nachwIj 'e' mev *Tylenol*", but that doesn't provide a
"-mo'" example. How about: *Tylenol*mo' 'oy'be'choH nachwIj. Due to the
Tylenol, my head started not-hurting.
>And some noun-noun things:
You have just about all of these backwards; I'll go through them one by
one. Also, you may be stretching the meaning of N-N constructions
somewhat. Kahless knows I've always championed the less restrictive
meaning of N-N constructions. I believe they can mean fairly broad
association, not strictly possession (this is borne out by canon like peQ
chem for "magnetic field" literally magnetism's field). But you're using
them to mean "X made of Y", which may be a little farther afield. Welsh
has a N-N construction almost exactly like Klingon's, but to say "a wooden
chair/a chair made of wood" it uses "A chair after its making of wood."
You use this meaning in every one of your examples, which is unfortunate.
I don't know if this is completely wrong... but I'd be careful, that's all.
>yIH yuch vISop.
>I ate a chocolate tribble.
Remember... "yIH yuch" is "tribble's chocolate". So it's a kind of
chocolate. I'm not talking about a kind of chocolate, though, I mean to
talk about a kind of tribble, since it was a tribble I ate. In general,
for two verbs X and Y, the N-N construct "X Y" is a kind of Y, not a kind
of "X". So a "HoS lIngwI'" is a kind og "lIngwI'" (generator), not a kind
of "HoS" (energy). So allowing for N-Ns to be "made of", you'd have to
make it "yuch yIH".
How to say it without using N-N? Tough. Maybe "yIH'e' chenmoHbogh yuch",
or in a separate sentence: "yIH'e' chenmoHlu'meH yuch lo'lu'" and then just
referring to it as "yIH".
>I figure one of two things. Either I've got it now, or I'm a complete
>idiot. ;)
Or maybe you're a non-idiot who doesn't have it now. Stranger things have
happened.
~mark