tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 19 11:26:02 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: A grammar question...

jatlh juDmoS:
>mayDaq loDnI'pu'wI' :
>Fellow warriors:

jang SuStel:
>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.

jIjang:
>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.

jang ter'eS:
>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.

You're probably right that I defined the noun-noun construction too
narrowly. It does refer to more than just ownership. However, I do not
believe I attempted to define it too broadly. I completely agreed that
juDmoS's faulty sentence was *not* an example of noun-noun construction.
I was arguing that juDmoS was not even attempting to use noun-noun
construction. However, charghwI' and others have made valid criticisms
of my argument which seem to invalidate it.

                                        DujHoD

Back to archive top level