tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 15 18:55:17 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cheghta' be'nalwI' - jajmaj wa'DIch
- From: TPO <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: cheghta' be'nalwI' - jajmaj wa'DIch
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 21:55:34 -0400
[snip]
>> >The confusion comes in Okrand's infelicitous choice of the term "possession"
>> >for one noun directly modifying another. Indeed, in his first example
in TKD
>> >(p.31) {nuH pegh} "the secret of the weapon, the weapon's secret", there is
>> >no question of ownership. He probably wanted to avoid terms like "genitive"
>> >or "construct" in what was, after all, intended as a popular book on the
>> >Klingon language.
>>
>> The {nuH pegh} example sure sounds like ownership to me, but I discovered
>> some time ago that my idea of "possession" or "ownership" matches closely
>> the linguistic idea of "genitive".
If MO had used a term like [genitive] in TKD, the linguisticly uneducated
folk like myself wouldn't have know what he was talking about.
Hmmm... my Webster's Pocket Dictionary sitting on my desk here says:
genitive. Form of noun or pronoun indicating possession; possessive case.
wejpuH
DloraH