tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 01 12:14:56 2008

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: ngIp (verb)

Doq ([email protected]) 

On May 1, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Rohan Fenwick wrote:

> ...jatlh Sangqar:
>> Here is a quote from a former BG:
> I was the said BG.
>
> jIjatlh 'e' ja' Sangqar:
>> ---start quote--->> Not necessarily. IIRC the noun-noun  
>> construction is not only
>> limited to possessive constructions, but may be used for all types
>> of genitives, including what would be translated as an apposition
>> in English: "man spouse"; "woman doctor"; "food fight". We have
>> the parallel canon term {peQ chem} "magnetic field" (i.e. of all
>> the different fields there are, it's the one pertaining to
>> magnetism). The lack of adjectives in Klingon for "male" and
>> "magnetic" means that this is the simplest way to do this
>> sort of construction. {loD nal} *could* mean "man's spouse", but
>> it doesn't necessarily have to.jang Doq, ja':
>> I don't find the word {nal} in my word list.
>
> No, but it's one of the most common bound morphemes in Klingon.

In that case, it is a bad example to bring up when one is talking  
about a "noun-noun" construction, since a morpheme is not a noun.  
Also, bound morphemes or bound nouns, for that matter, are not the  
same thing as a noun-noun construction.

People seem to have a problem realizing that a compound noun is not  
really the same thing as a noun-noun construction. Consider the  
difference between {puq be'} and {puqbe'}. The first in this pair is a  
noun-noun construction meaning "the child's woman". The second one is  
just a noun, meaning "daughter". It happens to have two syllables, and  
each of those two syllables happen to sound just like nouns, but the  
nouns that sound like those syllables are WORDS, while the two  
syllables are just that: SYLLABLES. In this case, the two nouns that  
sound like the two syllables just happen to relate to the compound  
noun, but as it turns out, that might as well be a happy accident.  
There is no rule that tells you the relationship between the former  
nouns combined into a compound noun and the resultant compound noun.  
That's why {puqbe'} and {puq be'} do not mean the same thing.

The section in TKD on compound nouns is quite different from a noun- 
noun construction where there ARE rules about the relationship between  
the two still-separated nouns.

Check out TKD on page 19:

 >>>>>
3.2.1 Compound nouns

Compound nouns consist of two or three nouns in a row, much like  
English "earthworm" ("earth" plus "worm") or "password" ("pass" plus  
"word"). For example, <jolpa'} "transport room" consists of {jol}  
"transport beam" plus {pa'} "room".
<<<<<

Notice that he doesn't mention any kind of rule or guideline about how  
the two or three nouns relate to the resulting compound noun. It's not  
a genitive relationship. There is no particular role assigned to one  
of the nouns depending on its position in the word. He is simply  
explaining that sometimes multiple nouns get jammed together to form  
new nouns.

Consider "earthworm" and "password". An "earthworm" is a worm that  
lives in the earth. A "password" is a word that you use in order to be  
allowed to pass. These are not things that you can come up with any  
simple guidelines in terms of explaining how or when you can combine  
two English nouns to form a new noun. Someone who doesn't speak  
English might easily think it's okay to talk about a doorkey or an  
acceleratorpedal or a TVchannel or a hatvisor, or a ... You should get  
my point by now.

Contrast that short explanation of compound nouns to page 30, Section  
3.4 on "The noun-noun construction". I won't quote it because it is  
long enough that you should just pull out your TKD and look for  
yourself. Note the difference in the length of the passage. He has a  
lot to explain to make clear the special relationship between the  
nouns in a noun-noun construction.

Often, here on this list, any time someone wants to use two nouns next  
to each other more than once, they want to make their own compound  
nouns. I'm surprised nobody has suggested *tlhInganHol* yet. I'm sure  
it would make the German speakers here happier if we did this.

But the point is, we really can't make up our own compound nouns in  
Klingon, any more than I can start talking about my drivinggloves or  
my baseballhat. We don't know what words a Klingon combines into  
compound nouns. We learn, one example at a time. We can't just mimmic  
patterns we think we are beginning to recognize. Just because we  
recognize something as a pattern doesn't mean it actually is one.

Ever see that photograph of a person's face on the landscape of Mars?  
Hello. It's not really a face. It's just some hills.

>> Likely, it is not a word,
>
> I never said {nal} is a word. I did hypothesise that it might have
> *been* a word, though, a reasonable enough proposal considering
> that the original discussion was about etymology in the first place.

Yes, but we were not talking about etymology when this example was  
dragged out. We were talking about noun-noun constructions, like the  
appropriate way to translate {latlh Hol}.

>> and it doesn't work to peel away a portion of a pollysyllabic noun
>> and treat it like an independent noun for any kind of useful
>> discussion.
>
> Except in etymology, no? The original discussion Sangqar quoted
> (which was probably two years or more ago now, since that's when
> I was BG) was, IIRC, about how the term {loDnal} could have come
> into being; someone asked why {loDnal} meant "husband" (i.e.
> "man spouse", assuming the bound element {-nal} to carry the
> meaning of "spouse" or "related by marriage", which seems pretty
> clear) and not "wife" (i.e. "man's spouse"). I never cited {loDnal}
> (or *{loD nal}, for that matter) as canon evidence for anything.
> Rather, it was {peQ chem} that I was using as canon evidence to
> interpret the origin of {loDnal}.

Just because you think you recognize a pattern, that doesn't mean it  
actually is one. You can't look at compound nouns and make assumptions  
about what the parts mean or what the relationship between them is.  
Okrand has repeatedly pointed that out, in his indirect way, every  
time he points out common syllables that are used in different  
polysyllabic nouns, that do not stand alone as nouns, with varying  
degrees of consistency in meaning.

> Therefore, forget {loDnal}/*{loD nal}. It has nothing to contribute
> to the topic you and Sangqar are discussing, and nor did I ever
> intend it to.
>> BG or not, that could have been handled better,
>
> I take exception to that. Perhaps it's due to the lack of context for
> the quote, but you misunderstood what I had tried to say (and
> further, you dodged the point Sangqar made by arguing about
> the essentially irrelevant *{loD nal} and ignoring the indisputably
> canon example {peQ chem}).

{peQ chem} is an odd example, since Okrand never gave us the word  
{chem} in any of his word lists. For all we know, this could have been  
a typo and he might have intended {peQchem}, since all other  
appearances of {chem} are second syllables of compound nouns {HoSchem,  
pIvchem, Surchem}. Are you ready to say that {chemvaH} is somehow  
related to a "field holster"?

I honestly believe that any time you or anybody else pontificates  
about compound nouns and their etymologies or the meanings of their  
undefined syllables, you are stepping out of bounds in terms of  
actually studying the language. Instead, you are writing interesting  
fiction with no meaningful reference to the language.

We're not here to study your fiction. We're here to study Okrand's  
fiction.

>> and likely is not a shining moment of insight to hang onto to
>> improve your understanding of the language.
>
> I continue to stand behind what I said, and I would explain it in
> exactly the same way again. {peQ chem} was and remains the
> relevant canon in my original message, not {loDnal}/*{loD nal}.

I still think it was probably a typo. Otherwise, Okrand would have  
included {chem} in one of his word lists, or he would have given it to  
the KLI through whatever means he gives them new words.

>> It is true that noun-noun extends farther than
>> putting an apostrophe "s" after the first noun. Sometimes it
>> translates a little better if you reverse the order of the nouns and
>> insert the word "of" between them when you translate them.
>> "Fight of food" makes more sense than "food's fight", for instance.
>
> Or even "food fight", maybe? Parallelling "other language"? The
> canon phrase {peQ chem} (literally "magnetism field") paves the
> way to {latlh Hol} "other language, other-one language".
> ghunchu'wI' has already pointed out the additional parallelism with
> {Hoch} "all".

Just because you think you recognize a pattern in the language, that  
doesn't mean the pattern actually exists. Okrand didn't give us a  
bunch of canon and leave us to figure out the grammar. He explains the  
grammar and gives us pitifully little canon. We can't make up our own  
rules to the grammar that he gives us.

Mind you, I've been quite tempted to do so, myself, but I've either  
controlled myself, or someone else managed to put me in my place and I  
backed down. I honestly believe that even on your strongest point,  
{peQ chem}, you overstep your appropriate boundaries when you start  
making generalities about a pattern you think you have recognized in  
the grammar.

Show me the chapter in TKD that explains this, or site the interview  
with Okrand or even a second-hand account of a conversation somebody  
had with him where he explained how this works. I DARE you.

> Now, on to other matters.

... I'm stopping here because on the matter of {-ghach}, we are in  
total agreement.

Doq

Back to archive top level