tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 16 13:02:16 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: paqmey permey

From: "Sean M. Burke" <[email protected]>
> I think I give TKD 3.4 a narrower reading that you do. I see it as just
> meaning "when you want to express 'X of Y', the construction for that is
> {Y X} with the proviso that you can't put type 5 suffixes on the Y." I
> don't see it as necessarily a filter against all sequences of
> "noun-with-type-5 noun-with-type-5".

A fairly vast body of evidence has shown that the Klingon noun-noun is more
than just possessive; it is genetive.  Some of the better examples include
phrases like /baS 'In/ for "metal percussion instrument," where a reading of
"metal's percussion instrument" makes no sense at all.  Some of the foggier
ones include /tlhIngan Hol/, where you can try to rationalize it by saying
it's "Klingons' language," but what we really have is a genetive
construction where the word /tlhIngan/ modifies and describes the following
noun, /Hol/.  Klingons do not POSSESS the language; the word /tlhIngan/ is
that which identifies which /Hol/ we're talking about.  This is the Klingon
noun-noun construction.

TKD 3.4 says, "it is possible to combine nouns in the manner of a compound
noun to prodouce a new construct even if it is not a legitimate compound
noun ("legitimate" in the sense that it would be found in a dictionary)."
This is what a noun-noun is in general.  Possession is one aspect of that.

English "X of Y" isn't always possessive.  Just because you can translate it
as "X of Y" doesn't mean it also means "Y's X."

Holtej wrote a two-part article on Klingon genitive in an old issue of
HolQeD (I can't cite the precise issues; the KLI's site appears to be down
again, at least from my location).

Stardate 2290.8

Back to archive top level