tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 03 18:05:54 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: gha'tlhIq

R Fenwick ([email protected]) 

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>The time stamp doesn't work for me. {tujbogh pem nI' po} has the adjective {nI'}
>between two nouns that I would otherwise take to be a noun-noun construction.
>That doesn't work. There can be no words between words in a noun-noun construction.

bIQ ngaS HIvje'lIj, 'ej cha'Hu' 'e' vIjatlh.

I said this two days ago in a less blunt way, but I'll say it again: this claim is
totally unsupported by canon. As far as I can remember Okrand has never made such a
statement explicitly, and the canon texts contain several clear counterexamples.

In addition to the three I noted three days ago:

poH tuj bI'reS ('u' invitation, which ghunchu'wI' has now also pointed out to you)
He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq "beside a travelled route" (S99)
veng wa'DIch Sep "First City region" (KGT 16)

I also just remembered {lo' law' lojmIt} "utility hatch" from BoP, literally "many
uses hatch".

In any case, even if you object to it on stylistic rather than grammatical grounds
a noun-adjectival-noun phrase is not at all ambiguous. Since adjectival verbs in
Klingon can't take objects anyway, there's only one way you can parse a phrase like,
say, {Duj Doq QuQ}.

QeS 'utlh

Back to archive top level