tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 17 14:21:51 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A grammar question...
jatlh DujHoD:
> jatlh juDmoS:
> >mayDaq loDnI'pu'wI' :
> >Fellow warriors:
>
> jang SuStel:
> >/may/ is "be fair." /may'/ is battle. But even adding the apostrophe,
the
> >phrase doesn't make sense. You've got two nouns, and the first has a
Type 5
> >suffix. THE KLINGON DICTIONARY, page 31, says "When the noun-noun
> >construction is used, only the second noun can take syntactic suffixes
(Type
> >5)." /-Daq/ can't be used where you've placed it.
>
> Your conclusion is, of course, valid, but I'm not sure about your
> reasoning. I don't think juDmoS was trying to use the noun-noun
> construction in this situation. The noun-noun construction is used only
> for possession (qar'a'?). I think juDmoS was simply using a sentence
> fragment here. For example, in the sentence
> tachDaq chom vIghom.
> the phrase {tachDaq chom} is obviously legal. This is not an example of
> the noun-noun construction -- it is simply a fragment.
I really hate this argument, for two reasons. First, someone always uses it
to justify what really is a noun-noun construction. juDmoS clearly wanted
to say "Brothers in battle" as an appelation, as a unit, not as two separate
elements broken off of a sentence.
TKD p. 30 explains what the noun-noun construction is for: "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."
Clearly, possessives fall into this category. The example in the book is
/nuH pegh/ "secret of the weapon. Thus, you cannot put a Type 5 noun suffix
on the first noun in a possessive construction, because it's a noun-noun
construction.
Page 31 also mentions that some English prepositional concepts are also
expressed by the Klingon noun-noun. The example used is /nagh DungDaq/
"above the rock." Type 5 suffixes cannot be put on the first noun in one of
these spatial references either, because it's a noun-noun construction.
TKD doesn't list the sort-of-compound-types that one may find. I would
expect that there are more. For instance, /tlhIngan Hol/. There has been
much justification of this as "language of Klingons," but such
justifications needn't be made. It's a new construct with a new meaning
created by juxtaposing two Klingon nouns next to each other, the noun-noun
construction, and therefore it cannot have a Type 5 suffix on the first one.
So for instance, /tlhIngan'e' Hol/ is illegal.
Second, it's just silly. It's always used to get around the fact that
Klingon doesn't have a noun phrase which identifies a noun with a place.
/tachDaq chom/ might be called a sentence fragment, but to claim that it
means the same as the English phrase "bartender in a bar" is just plain
bunk. If it's supposed to mean that, it's an illegal construction.
> SuStel:
> >Another thing to try would be to simply refer to /SuvwI'/ or /SuvwI'pu'/.
> >There's nothing explicitly identifying the speaker as a "fellow" warrior,
> >though.
>
> Would {latlh SuvwI'pu'} work?
It's closer, but the idea of "fellowship" is only to be found under a layer
or two of implication. "He referred to us as 'other' warriors. Other than
whom? Him? Yes, he's a warrior. Ah, he's pointing out that we're all
warriors."
> Alternatively, juDmoS could just say {SuvwI' maH} and then go into his
> speech.
Or /tlhIngan maH!/
> juDmoS:
> >meblI' jIHmo' jIquvqu'.
> >It is my great Honor to be your guest.
>
> I doubt a Klingon would bother with the pleasantry of saying, "It is my
> great honor..." I would just say {meblI' jIH} or {meblI' jIHneS}.
If a Klingon IS greatly honored by something, then he'd say it. In English
it might be a pleasantry, but honor is quite important to Klingons, and if
they talk about it, they mean it.
Just announcing /meblI' jIH/ (or /mebra' jIH/), even appending /-neS/, would
probably leave his audience scratching their heads, thinking, "That's
obvious! We know that; why'd he say it?"
> Hey,
> wait a second...I thought you were addressing multiple warriors. Why are
> we using {-lI'} instead of {-ra'}?
Quite right. /-ra'/ it is.
SuStel
Stardate 462.4