tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 31 09:48:01 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon Academy
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon Academy
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:47:30 CDT
> But there *are* such cases in English, and they are mirrored
> well in Klingon. {romuluSngan maghwI'} is interpreted quite
> differently based on whether you consider {romuluSngan} as a
> noun preceding a second noun {maghwI'} or as the object of a
> verb. Is a "romulan traitor" a romulan who betrays? Or can
> it be one who betrays romulans? It's not a simple question.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>
"a traitor of romulans" seems to be either "a romulan who betrays"
or "one who betrays romulans"; therefore I assume {romuluSngan
maghwI'} likewise might refer to {romuluSngan maghbogh nuv'e'}
just as well as the (more likely, I guess) {maghbogh romuluSngan}.
i.e. I don't need to interpret N1 in N1 Vb-wI' as an object of
Vb to get that reading. I just look at it as a N1-N2 construct,
which seems to be just as versatile and ambiguous as its english
counterpart.
in fact, if it wasn't, I'd have to say that the first interpretation
seems much more natural to me; likewise "a fighter of Klingons"
is much more naturally "one who fights Klingons" than "a Klingon
who fights", and we know quite well, the latter is a possible
reading for {tlhIngan SuvwI'}
(the same goes, btw, for "a romulans' traitor", "a Klingons' fighter")
in other words, I don't see a reason why there should be only
one possible reading?
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]