tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 17 07:00:03 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 262
According to R.B Franklin:
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, William H. Martin wrote:
>
> > According to Matt Treyvaud:
> >
> > > Incidentally, do we know now how to handle {je}-ing more than two nouns?
> > Your suspicion is confirmed in the newest issue of HolQeD.
> > Okrand lists a usual disruptor pistol, a power source conveyor
> > and a long stick and uses just one {je} at the end.
...
> I've been puzzling over the construction of that sentence. Putting so
> many nouns in a row is sure to cause some ambiguity. At first, I
> thought it was three conjoined nouns too.
>
> But where you saw:
> <nISwI' HIch motlh> <HoS Hal qengwI'> <naQ tIq> je,
> I thought it was:
> <nISwI' HIch motlh> <HoS Hal> <qengwI' naQ tIq> je
Long stick carrier? This makes more sense than a power supply
carrier? I can see why a disruptor rifle needs a power supply
carrier. I can't see why one with such a weapon needs an
accessory to help one carry a long stick.
> Putting so may nouns in a row is sure to cause some ambiguity. However,
> after reading the English translation, I don't think it's either of these.
> The English refers to "an extended power supply stock", so I'm thinking
> that this could really be just two nouns:
>
> <nISwI' HIch motlh> <HoS Hal qengwI' naQ tIq> je
> and perhaps the last part is actually a N-N-N-N construction meaning
> "long power source carrier staff" (extended power supply stock).
Remember that the possessive/associative relationship would
need to exist for all of these nouns. (But you know that).
Source of power works. Carrier of source of power works. Staff
of carrier of source of power does not work so well. I also
think the adjectival verb would be associated with the
preceeding noun and not with the entire noun phrase, so you'd
have:
long stick of the carrier of the source of the power
Everything here works for me except the long stick part. It
only makes sense as a separate term.
I'm not just trying to be difficult here. I agree that
stringing nouns together is a mess, since it is not at all easy
to determine where the associations are possessive and where
they are result of the conjunction. That point is clear.
However in this context, I can only interpret it one way.
> Despite the ambiguity of this sentence, we do have another canon example
> of three nouns being conjoined by putting {je} on the end. As Lawrence
> has pointed out, the copyright notice printed on the cards in Klingon has
> the symbols for trademark, registered trademark and copyright followed by
> {je}:
>
> {[superscript TM], [circle with an R inside], [circle with a C inside] je
> tera' DIS wa'-Hut-Hut-loS Paramount Pictures.} ("Trademark, registered
> trademark & copyright 1995 Paramount Pictures.)
On this, we both agree.
> > charghwI'
>
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |