[111672] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] verbs with {-bogh} and numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 20 04:45:39 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:30:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOuMxMRpJ6uKrn9rQT4+W7RU9v-LQAQED+T0Zc1Jh=f+Kg@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.
--===============0879651785530305358==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------7F81CF8FFD8FFF733620EA5F"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7F81CF8FFD8FFF733620EA5F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/19/2017 12:29 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
> I have no problem with this either, and I don't find it jarring.
> TKD tells us that when you construct a relative clause, that
> clause with its head noun is treated as if it were itself just a
> noun. If *qay'bogh ghu'* is /*foo,*/ then *wej /foo/ *is
> completely legal.
>
> How many *qay'bogh ghu'* do you have? *wej qay'bogh ghu'.*
>
> It makes sense grammatically. But as a stylistic thing, it feels to me
> like there's more potential for confusion when splitting the words
> apart like that.
Forget *wej,* then. *chorgh qay'bogh ghu'*/eight problematical
situations./ There is no other possible interpretation there.
How about a *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'*/Romulan
hunter-killer probe /(KCD)? It is explicitly NOT a probe that hunts and
kills Romulans; it is a probe of Romulan manufacture that hunts and
kills. That's some canon evidence of using a relative clause as the
second noun of a noun-noun construction. Your aesthetic sense would make
you say *Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh romuluSngan nejwI',* but that's not what we
get.
It's all about scope. A *Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh **romuluSngan nejwI'* is a
"Romulan probe" that "hunts and kills." Of all Romulan probes, this is
the kind that hunts and kills. A *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh
nejwI'* is a Romulan "probe that hunts and kills." Of all hunter-killer
probes, this is the Romulan kind.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------7F81CF8FFD8FFF733620EA5F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/19/2017 12:29 PM, nIqolay Q
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOuMxMRpJ6uKrn9rQT4+W7RU9v-LQAQED+T0Zc1Jh=f+Kg@mail.gmail.com">
<div>On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>I have no problem with this either, and I don't find it
jarring. TKD tells us that when you construct a relative
clause, that clause with its head noun is treated as if it
were itself just a noun. If <b>qay'bogh ghu'</b> is <i><b>foo,</b></i>
then <b>wej <i>foo</i> </b>is completely legal.</p>
<p>How many <b>qay'bogh ghu'</b> do you have? <b>wej
qay'bogh ghu'.</b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>It makes sense grammatically. But as a stylistic thing, it
feels to me like there's more potential for confusion when
splitting the words apart like that.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Forget <b>wej,</b> then. <b>chorgh qay'bogh ghu'</b><i> eight
problematical situations.</i> There is no other possible
interpretation there.</p>
<p>How about a <b>romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'</b><i>
Romulan hunter-killer probe </i>(KCD)? It is explicitly NOT a
probe that hunts and kills Romulans; it is a probe of Romulan
manufacture that hunts and kills. That's some canon evidence of
using a relative clause as the second noun of a noun-noun
construction. Your aesthetic sense would make you say <b>Sambogh
'ej HoHbogh romuluSngan nejwI',</b> but that's not what we get.</p>
<p>It's all about scope. A <b>Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh </b><b>romuluSngan
nejwI'</b> is a "Romulan probe" that "hunts and kills." Of all
Romulan probes, this is the kind that hunts and kills. A <b>romuluSngan
Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'</b> is a Romulan "probe that hunts
and kills." Of all hunter-killer probes, this is the Romulan kind.<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>
--------------7F81CF8FFD8FFF733620EA5F--
--===============0879651785530305358==
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
--===============0879651785530305358==--
