tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 26 13:47:52 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Prefix Trick ( was {-be'})
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Prefix Trick ( was {-be'})
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:47:51 GMT
While the description of the prefix trick was great, the commentary on the
difference between N-N possession and apposition could probably benefit from
some clarification.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Dahl" <[email protected]>
>
> Commentary: The difference between N-N possession and apposition is that in
> the former, the more general term comes last, preceded by the more specific,
> while in the latter, the more general term comes first.
I don't believe this is generally true, since I can say both "Carolyn, my
sister" and I can say "My sister, Carolyn" and both are equally appositional.
There has been no indication that I know of in Klingon that the same
reversability is not acceptable.
More to the point, in English, we use the possessive form of the first noun or
reverse the two nouns and use the word "of" to mark a possessive or genitive
construction, while we use a comma or verbal pause to indicate apposition:
Mary's sister
the sister of Mary
my wife, Mary
Mary, my wife
We can combine these with relative clarity in English:
Laura, my wife, Mary's sister
Klingon, however, makes no syntactical difference at all between the
genitive/possessive construction and apposition:
charghwI' HoD
That can mean any of the following:
Victor, the captain [Victor as proper name]
Victor's captain [Victor as proper name]
Captain Victor [Victor as proper name, captain as his title]
The victor's captain
The victor, Captain [Captain as proper name]
Victor, captain [Victor as proper name, captain as person being addressed]
The victor, captain [captain being person addressed]
.. and more, if you continue interpreting Captain to be a proper name of the
person being addressed, etc.
Let's face it, when you pile nouns together in Klingon, it can be very
confusing. Klingon is always very clear about how multiple verbs relate to one
another in a well-formed sentence, but it is quite often quite ambiguous about
the grammatical function of nouns.
I'll be bold enough to say that in the vast majority of cases of ambiguity in
the Klingon language, nouns are the source of that ambiguity. Sometimes an
apparent direct object of one verb might instead be the subject of a preceeding
verb. It is legal to omit the {-'e'} marking the head noun of a relative
clause, leaving what is often a very ambiguous result. Three or more nouns
followed by a conjunction might be a list of independent nouns joined by the
conjunction, or any pair of them might be linked by a genitive relationship or
by apposition.
Fortunately, in many Klingon sentences, nouns are quite optional. Do without
them when you can.
> Also, in the former,
> the two nouns combine to form a new concept, while in the latter, the two
> nouns (or phrases) both refer to different aspects of the same concept (that
> is, "Duras's sisters" and "Betor and Lursa" both refer to the same persons).
I had always heard them referred to as "The Duras sisters", as in "Be'tor
Duras" and "Lursa Duras". Yet another ambiguity.
> > Hergh Suy
>
> qe'San
Will