tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 22 08:59:58 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mIvDaq yIH
ghItlh David Trimboli <[email protected]>:
> Or it's an exception, or an error. Languages aren't always exacting in
> their rules, but the rules represent the general case. "When the noun-noun
> construction is used, only the second noun can take syntactic suffixes (Type
> 5)" (TKD p. 31). Don't take one example and cheerfully throw out a rule of
> TKD.
Now I have a couple of questions/comment type things. In section 3.4 it says
that the noun-noun construction given there is the Klingon possessive
construction and when it's used you can't use a type 5s on the first noun.
What's the construction used when you want to have two nouns that do not have a
possesive relationship? Can you use type 5's on the first noun in that
construction?
For example, how do I say "seashell"?
I'm not allowed to make new compound nouns so I have to say {bIQ'a' nagh DIr},
but wait, that means "The shell of the sea" or the "sea's shell" and thats not
what I want. What's the rule here? Do I have to make some long -bogh clause and
end up saying "The shell that was found in the sea"? but that's not really what
"seashell" means either. I guess I could do something like "the shell of an
animal that lived in the sea, dies and was then washed up on the beach"... but
that just doesn't jive with my feelings on Klingon brievity.
What other rules do we have for using nouns together? Maybe {telDaq
wovmoHwI'mey} is an example of a different noun-noun constrution that isn't
possesive? Maybe I'm just dancing around the wrong tree (most likely).
qurgh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For a free wizage.net web based email address, email me!