tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 17 22:08:25 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 262
Tue, 17 Oct 1995, ghItlh charghwI':
> According to R.B Franklin:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, William H. Martin wrote:
> > 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.
I was thinking {qengwI' naQ tIn} (long carrier stick) was referring to the
stock used to hold the weapon.
> > <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:
I'm thinking {qengwI' naQ tIn} means "long carrier staff",
meaning, it what you use to hold the weapon or that the staff is
carrying the weapon. If the staff is holding the power source, it would
be much more straightforward to say {HoS Hal qengbogh naQ tIn}.
I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, the only reason this
interpretation even occured to me is the accompanying English translation.
> charghwI'
yoDtargh