[89246] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Questions on "expanded" noun-noun phrases
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Tue Aug 30 09:29:12 2011
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:22:40 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbUktu5JBSK7G=UoJ07XhQV9+ob=PFP6VhBR4S3ttnH01g@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I agree with your interpretation of the English sentence, but the suggested phrasing is not the only possible interpretation of the Klingon phrase:
SuvwI' wej nuHmey can be rendered either as "the warrior's three weapons" or simply as "three weapons which pertain to the warrior" (among other options); the former implies the warrior has only three weapons, the other carries no such implication.
Then, of course, one can also interpret it as "Warrior #3's weapons", but if that were the correct interpretation, it'd probably be clear from context. Also, one can specify this by writing SuvwI' wejDIch nuHmey.
On a side note, I wish there were a word meaning "to be the only one(s)".
qeylIS wa' puqloD [only] - Kahless' only son
wej 'etlhmeywIj [only] - All of my three blades
wa' toQDuj [only]be' - One of my more than one Birds-of-Prey
________________________________________
From: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org [tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org] on behalf of André Müller [esperantist@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:40
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Subject: Re: Questions on "expanded" noun-noun phrases
>
> What difference exists, then, between "the warrior's three weapons" and
> "three of the warrior's weapons?"
>
>
The first sentence implies that the warrior only has 3 weapons and the
sentence refers to all of them.
The second sentence implies that the warrior has 3 or more weapons (probably
more) and the sentence refers to only three out of them all.
Subtle but important difference when you captured a prisoner and make him
give you his three weapons or three of his weapons. ;)
