tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 22 11:17:37 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mIvDaq yIH

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

>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.

>From: [email protected]
>
>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?

I don't have the time or resources at the moment to list them all for you, 
but there are a ton of noun-noun constructions used by Okrand that are not 
possessive.  A few examples are:
     tlhIngan Hol
     baS 'In
     romuluS HIq
     tlhIngan wo'
     tlhIngan Segh
     'ejyo' luch
     targh tIq
     Hoch SuvwI'pu''e'

The Klingon noun-noun construction is not just a possessive construction.  
It is a *genitive* construction.  Even TKD says that the noun-noun is 
*usually* translated as possessive.  Wikipedia defines genitive clearly:

     The genitive case is an adjectival form of a noun
     that shows some sort of relationship between
     itself and what it describes. In a general sense,
     this genitive relationship may be thought of as
     one thing belonging to, being created from, or
     otherwise deriving from some other thing.

     Specific varieties of genitive relationships include:

     origin ("men of Rome")
     composition ("wheel of cheese")
     part of a mass ("a pound of beef")
     number of distinct items (Old English "féower manna"; literally, "four 
of men")
     relationship ("Janet's husband")
     subjectivity ("my leaving")
     objectivity ("the archduke's murder")
     description ("man of honor", "day of reckoning")
     inalienable possession ("my height", "his existence", "her long 
fingers")
     alienable possession ("his jacket", "my drink")

     The last two relationships are the most commonly expressed by the 
genitive.

This isn't necessarily an exhaustive list.  I can map most of these to 
Klingon examples, though a few work differently.  Observe:

     origin ("men of Rome")
tlhIngan Duj

     composition ("wheel of cheese")
Sor Hap

     part of a mass ("a pound of beef")
*no examples*

     number of distinct items (Old English "féower manna"; literally, "four 
of men")
numbers *are* explicitly treated like nouns in Klingon (for the most part).  
For instance, {wa' tlhIngan}

     relationship ("Janet's husband")
I don't have the HolQeD that explains kinship terms with me, but I'll bet 
it's got noun-noun constructions in it.

     subjectivity ("my leaving")
I'm not sure I get this one, but it might be something along the lines of 
{jIH 'em} "the area in front of me."  Sure, {jIH} is a pronoun, but they're 
also largely treated like nouns.

     objectivity ("the archduke's murder")
I can't think of any obvious examples right now, but I'm sure there are some 
in KGT.

     description ("man of honor", "day of reckoning")
batlh 'etlh

     inalienable possession ("my height", "his existence", "her long 
fingers")
This is performed by Type 4 noun suffixes

     alienable possession ("his jacket", "my drink")
Likewise, Type 4 noun suffixes.

>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?

That's exactly what you would say.  This is an example of Origin.

>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.

Brevity is admirable, but not a grammatical requirement.  In any case, 
{bIQ'a' nagh DIr} is just fine.

>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).

The rule says that Type 5 suffixes aren't allowed on the first noun of a 
noun-noun construction, not on the first noun of a possessive construction.

Noun-noun constructions are *genitive*, not just possessive.

SuStel
Stardate 4475.7

_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up ? now 3 months FREE! 
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

Back to archive top level