tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 18 11:35:16 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: A grammar question...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 10:35 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: A grammar question...
>
>
> ghItlh SuStel:
> > jatlh DujHoD:
> >  > 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.

SuStel addressed this point better in the larger message not fully quoted
here, but to explain my total agreement with him, while in English, it is
okay to refer to "a bartender in a bar", in Klingon, the {tachDaq} is the
setting for the verb, not a modifier for the noun. "I met-in-a-bar a
bartender," or "In-a-bar, I met a bartender." Except for one cryptic
reference (a sentence fragment) on the Bird of Prey poster, the thing we are
led to believe that you can't say is "I met a bartender-in-a-bar."

I hope I'm making sense here.

> >  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.

Unfortunately, Klingon grammar doesn't really work like that. If you think
differently, let's just take the above example and turn it around. Try to
say, "A bartender-in-a-bar met me." You can't do it. The locative has to go
at the beginning of the sentence, but the subject has to go at the end of
the sentence and the verb obviously gets in the way. No. The locative always
is grammatically linked to the verb and never to any noun. If you want to
say "Brothers in battle", then say "ghobchuqbogh loDnI'pu'".

Gee. Isn't that exactly how Okrand says it? (Minus the {-bogh}, anyway.)

> >  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."
> >
>
> I agree with SuStel completely.  DujHoD errs in trying to define
> the noun-noun
> construction simultaneously too narrowly (considering it only to show
> possession)
> and too broadly (by trying to allow a Type 5 suffix to sneak in there).
>
> Actually, the N1-N2 construction shows what Holtej calls (in
> HolQeD v3n3) the
> Genitive relationship, which is considerably broader in application than
> simple
> ownership.  Basically, N1 modifies N2 in some way.  This can include the
> notion
> of ownership, but it also covers relationships like origin, purpose and
> composition.  What it doesn't do is allow you to use an N1 with a suffix,
> because
> a noun plus a suffix is no longer simply a noun (it becomes an adverbial,
> basically, although MO doesn't call it that, and in Klingon, adverbials
> modify sentences,
> not nouns).
>
> -- ter'eS

Exactly.

charghwI'

> http://www.geocities.com/teresh_2000



Back to archive top level