tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 22 12:30:56 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mIvDaq yIH
Thanks ter'eS and SuStel. Not being one of linguistic background (or any real
understand of the science of lingustics) I often get confused by all these
wierd and wonderful terms. I normally just look at the language on a "how can I
use it" type of level and leave all these kind of stuff to the linguist types.
Guess that's why I don't post often...
Thanks again
qurgh
ghItlh [email protected]:
> ghItlh qurgh:
>
> > 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"?
> >
>
> You have to understand the idea of "possession" more broadly. In fact, there
> is
> ample canon evidence that the Klingon N1-N2 construction is actually an
> example of what linguists call a genitive relationship, which includes simple
> possession, but isn't limited to it.
>
> Consider these phrases:
>
> {romuluS HIq} 'Romulan ale' - the compound refers not to something owned by
> a
> particular romulan (usually!) but to ale whose place of origin is Romulus.
>
> {baS 'In} 'metal' drum' - reference here is to the material the drum is made
> of.
>
> {yaS taj} - 'the officer's knife' - possessive as we usually understand the
> term.
>
> The way I understand the N1-N2 compound is that the N1 noun restricts or
> defines
> the N2 noun. So, of the universal set of ales, the one from Romulus, of the
> universal set of drums, the metal kind. Of the universal set of knives, the
> one
> that is associated with the officer.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> In fact, I would say your first try was exactly right (except I think we now
> have
> a word for the shell of an animal, ?{pel'aQ}). There is some ambiguity in
> 'seashell'
> vs. 'the sea's shell', but that is the right way to phrase it, and what's a
> little
> ambiguity among friends?
>
> There's nothing in the idea of N1-N2 compounds as genitives that excludes the
> adding of a suffix like {-Daq}, except that we're told explicitly in TKD that
> we can't.
>
> > 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).
>
> I go with the theory that it either is a mistake, or was intended to mean 'on
> the wing: lights", or the words were separated wrongly (there are other
> separation
> errors on the poster, too).
>
> - ter'eS
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For a free wizage.net web based email address, email me!