[109049] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Noun-noun constructions with quantifiers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sun Feb 19 20:39:53 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 19:59:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbUO-5aeTZHSypTLyNSbUZkgCxCGdnO+CiriKfCCeixU8g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3146001193327968662==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------B1ACC5807DDCBAFF7924FA59"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------B1ACC5807DDCBAFF7924FA59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 2/19/2017 6:52 PM, André Müller wrote:
> In a noun-noun construction, when introducing a preceding quantifier
> such as {'op} or {Hoch}, is it better to put it in front of the whole
> phrase as in a) below, or in front of the second element, as in b)?
>
> In this example, I am trying to say "Some Klingon sentences", would
> that be:
> a) {'op tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey}
> or
> b) {tlhIngan Hol 'op mu'tlheghmey}
>
> Sentence a) could be misinterpreted as "sentences of some Klingon
> languages". This is also the reason why I am tending to choose b).
I find that it helps to think of the phrase in "weapon's secret" form
rather than "secret of the weapon" form. The latter can trip you up with
alternative meanings; the former is pretty much guaranteed to match the
sense of the Klingon, though it may not always be the most colloquial
English.
Given that, I'd go for a). Each first noun (phrase) modifies and
constricts the second noun (phrase). /Klingon some sentences/ doesn't
get constricted in a way I'm comfortable with;/some Klingon sentences/ does.
Now, there's no guarantee that Klingon's noun-noun constructions have to
match the sense you get with the English translation, but I think
there's a reason beyond English convention that /some Klingon sentences/
makes sense while /Klingon some sentences/ does not. I think the
correct-sounding one, in some way I can't express, more correctly
narrows down the meaning than the other one. It's the same with the noun
suffixes: they appear in the order they do for linguistic reasons; it's
not an arbitrary order.
All that said, it's true that either order could be said to LOGICALLY
arrive at the same thing: some of the set of Klingon sentences versus
the set of some sentences that are Klingon. So while I definitely prefer
a) over b), I can't definitively say that b) is wrong.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------B1ACC5807DDCBAFF7924FA59
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/2017 6:52 PM, André Müller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABDLMbUO-5aeTZHSypTLyNSbUZkgCxCGdnO+CiriKfCCeixU8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><span><span>In a noun-noun construction, when
introducing a preceding quantifier such as {'op} or
{Hoch}, is it better to put it in front of the whole
phrase as in a) below, or in front of the second
element, as in b)?<br>
<br>
</span></span></div>
<span><span>In this example, I am trying to say "Some
Klingon sentences", would that be:<br>
</span></span></div>
<span><span>a) {'op tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey}<br>
</span></span></div>
<span><span> or<br>
</span></span></div>
<span><span>b) {tlhIngan Hol 'op mu'tlheghmey}<br>
<br>
</span></span></div>
<span><span>Sentence a) could be misinterpreted as "sentences of
some Klingon languages". This is also the reason why I am
tending to choose b).</span></span></blockquote>
<br>
<p>I find that it helps to think of the phrase in "weapon's secret"
form rather than "secret of the weapon" form. The latter can trip
you up with alternative meanings; the former is pretty much
guaranteed to match the sense of the Klingon, though it may not
always be the most colloquial English.<br>
</p>
<p>Given that, I'd go for a). Each first noun (phrase) modifies and
constricts the second noun (phrase). <i>Klingon some sentences</i>
doesn't get constricted in a way I'm comfortable with;<i> some
Klingon sentences</i> does.</p>
<p>Now, there's no guarantee that Klingon's noun-noun constructions
have to match the sense you get with the English translation, but
I think there's a reason beyond English convention that <i>some
Klingon sentences</i> makes sense while <i>Klingon some
sentences</i> does not. I think the correct-sounding one, in
some way I can't express, more correctly narrows down the meaning
than the other one. It's the same with the noun suffixes: they
appear in the order they do for linguistic reasons; it's not an
arbitrary order.<br>
</p>
<p>All that said, it's true that either order could be said to
LOGICALLY arrive at the same thing: some of the set of Klingon
sentences versus the set of some sentences that are Klingon. So
while I definitely prefer a) over b), I can't definitively say
that b) is wrong.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------B1ACC5807DDCBAFF7924FA59--
--===============3146001193327968662==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============3146001193327968662==--
