tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 17:26:17 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
Christopher Doty wrote:
>> As I mentioned before, there are several examples of noun–noun
>> constructions with {-vaD} on the first noun. I believe they all occur in
>> isolated noun phrases (that is, not in verbal clauses). The rules tell
>> us this is not allowed, but there they are. They *are* noun-nouns.
>
> *Why* are they noun-nouns? I see nothing in TKD that says that any
> two nouns next to each other are always and only in a N-N
> relationship. In <yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'>, you wouldn't say that the
> two nouns are in a N-N construction, I assume.
No, because {yaSvaD} relates to the verb as a beneficiary. The prisoner
didn't give a "knife for the officer," he gave a knife, and the officer
was the recipient of that action.
> It seems to me, based on the rule that you can't have suffixes on the
> first noun, your reasoning is backwards here. If you see "N-vaD N,"
> those nouns CANNOT be in a N-N construction, because it would be
> ungrammatical, so they must be considered something else (two nouns
> that just happened to end up next to each other).
You're assuming the sentence is known to be correct. When analyzing a
sentence one of *us* comes up with, there is no such guarantee. That's
what I was doing when this subject came up.
>> The BoP poster, plus this one, have enough of them that I can't complain
>> *too* strongly if someone uses them, but as you now see, they will be
>> really ambiguous if you try to use them: are they modifying the object
>> or the verb? Personally, I will not use them without confirmation from
>> Okrand.
>
> I just don't see this as ambiguous. As I outlined above, "N-vaD N"
> cannot be ambiguous, because it can't be a N-N construction.
What is it? Is it a noun phrase of any kind? Is it really just part of
"N-vaD N V N," and can't be analyzed separately?
And how does {yIHvaD may' 'oH may' quvHa''e'} mean anything other than
"A dishonorable battle is a battle; a tribble is the recipient of this
being a battle"?
> If you translate it straight across into English, you get "A
> dishonorable battle is a battle for tribbles." Now, I'm willing to
> acknowledge that I've basically just translated a somewhat idiomatic
> construction into Klingon, and one might have objects for that reason,
> but I still don't see
I see this translation as having a noun phrase, "battle for tribbles."
(And that doesn't mean someone is battling for possession of tribbles,
but that it's a battle that tribbles undertake.) I don't see how this
can possibly be anything other than a noun phrase. It's the same in
Klingon: what you're trying to do is use a noun phrase *{yIHvaD may'}.
But the {-vaD} noun applies to the verb, not the object.
>> I am also convinced that Okrand simply forgot that the rules in TKD
>> forbid this sort of thing.
>
> Can you tell me what rule this is? I'm still not following. I know
> that there is a rule that suffixes can't go on the first noun in a N-N
> construction, but I haven't seen a rule that says all noun-noun
> sequences are automatically noun-noun constructions...
If a sequence of nouns is not a noun-noun construction, what is it? What
roles do those nouns play in the sentence? The earlier nouns can't be
modifying the later nouns, because that's a noun-noun construction.
Nouns with syntactic markers or timestamp nouns might sit next to each
other, but all of those apply to the *verb*, not the other nouns.
DaHjaj juHwIjDaq yaSvaD baS taj nobta' puq
Today, in my home, the child gave the officer a metal knife.
There is only one noun-noun in this sentence: {baS taj}. This noun
phrase is the object of the verb. The other nouns {DaHjaj juHwIjDaq
yaSvaD} are not part of any noun-noun construction, but neither are they
part of any noun phrases (aside from each one being its own, single-word
noun phrase). Each word has a role to play in the sentence that relates
to the verb, not the other nouns. {DaHjaj} tells when the action occurs
(timestamps are unmarked and come at the beginning of the sentence).
{juHwIjDaq} tells where the action occurs. {yaSvaD} tells who receives
the result of the action. {DaHjaj} does not in any way modify or clarify
{juHwIjDaq} or {yaSvaD}, and so on.
So if you want {yIHvaD may' 'oH may' quvHa''e'} to mean anything other
than "A dishonorable battle is a battle, and this being a battle is
intended for tribbles," you have to explain how {yIHvaD} can relate to
{may'} without it being a noun-noun construction.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush