[84712] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: SoSwI' SoH'a'?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Tue May 20 16:08:48 2008
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:07:43 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
In-Reply-To: <621777.27955.qm@web82606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ghunchu'wI':
> >> I also wonder about the correctness of {SoS bo'Degh} {ghu bo'Degh},
> >> but I'm not sure what to suggest in their place.
Voragh:
> > Another option is to reverse the nouns: {bo'Degh SoS} "the bird's
> mother",
> > {bo'Degh ghu} "the bird's baby".
> >
> > Yet another option would be {bo'Degh nen} "the mature/grown-up/adult bird"
> > or {bo'Degh qan} "the old bird" vs. {bo'Degh Qup} "the young bird". But
> > these don't feel quite right either.
ter'eS:
>The problem is that in "mother bird", the nouns are in apposition, not a
>genitive relationship, so the N1-N2
>model doesn't really hold. Both terms, "mother" and "bird" refer equally
>to the same entity: "the mother
>who is a bird/bird who is a mother". The closest analogy would be the
>phrase from the Skybox card (?)
>that names Dura's sisters.
Of course we could translate the appositional phrase {SoS bo'Degh} "mother
bird" literally, but I think ghunchu'wI' and I were uncomfortable because
it's too anthropomorphic: i.e. do Klingons use {SoS} and {ghu} (or {be'}
"female" and {loD} "male" for that matter!) to refer to animals?
AFAIK we have no idea how Klingons refer to young or immature
animals. Okrand's only comment IIRC on the matter is in KCD:
A {Qa'Hom} is not a young {Qa'}, but it does bear a vague
resemblance to its namesake.
Note that he's NOT saying here that {-Hom} isn't used to refer to young
animals (it could be for all we know), he's just saying that in this case
these are two different, if similar looking, species.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
