[89239] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Questions on "expanded" noun-noun phrases
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Tue Aug 30 07:09:55 2011
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:03:45 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+cwSm8=HE8azOVZ1B0oBHGpXam799BS-5T_CNGdmnKAvKTfEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Noun + Stative verb + Noun is definitely possible; conside for instance muD ngeb SeHwI' pat (Atmospheric Control System; more literally "fake atmosphere controller system").
I'm uncertain about the noun + number + noun vs. number + noun + noun question; the former feels more logical, but you never know.
//loghaD
________________________________________
From: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org [tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org] on behalf of Philip Newton [philip.newton@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:40
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Subject: Questions on "expanded" noun-noun phrases
It's possible to have noun-noun combinations such as {SuvwI' 'etlh}
"the warrior's sword".
It's also possible to have noun-adjective combinations such as {SuvwI'
yoH} "the brave warrior".
It's also possible to have noun-noun combinations where the first noun
has a possessive, demonstrative, or plural suffix: {SuvwI'vam 'etlh}
"this warrior's sword"; {jupwI' 'etlh} "my friend's sword"; {SuvwI'pu'
'etlh} "the warriors' sword(s)".
Now my question is:
Is it possible to have noun-adjective-noun combinations such
as?{SuvwI' yoH 'etlh} "the brave warrior's sword"?
And for that matter: what about noun-noun-adjective phrases such as
?{SuvwI' 'etlh jej} "the sharp sword of the warrior; the warrior's
sharp sword"?
...and while I think about it, how about quantified first nouns? Would
?{wej SuvwI' 'etlh} "the sword(s) of the three warriors" work? Or
would it mean "the three swords of the warrior(s)"? (English "the
three warriors' swords" is ambiguous to me - it could mean either "the
three (warriors' swords)" or "(the three warriors)' swords".)
How about quantified second nouns? Could you translate "the warrior's
three swords" as ?{SuvwI' wej 'etlh}?
How about "the three warriors' five swords"? ?{wej SuvwI' vagh 'etlh}?
I'm guessing that demonstratives on the second noun are out: that
*{SuvwI' 'etlhvam} is as bad as *"This the warrior's sword" is in
English; the sword is doubly-determined. At least in English, you can
re-cast as "This sword of the warrior's"; perhaps {'etlhvam'e'
ghajbogh SuvwI'} in Klingon. Similarly with possessives; since the
second noun is already possessed, I'm not even sure what something
like *{SuvwI' 'etlhDaj} would mean, let alone something like *{SuvwI'
'etlhwIj}: *"The warrior's his sword, the warrior's my sword"?? Here,
even *"My sword of the warrior's" doesn't work in English.
...although, what if you interpret it not as "the sword of a
particular warrior" but "the sword associated with warrior-ness", as
in "My warrior-sword"? Then perhaps {SuvwI' 'etlhwIj} would work after
all - like, say, {Dargh HIvje'wIj} "my teacup".
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
