[89250] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Questions on "expanded" noun-noun phrases
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Tue Aug 30 11:40:20 2011
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:32:10 -0700
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CA+cwSm8=HE8azOVZ1B0oBHGpXam799BS-5T_CNGdmnKAvKTfEQ@mail.g
mail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
If you hadn't asked, but merely written them in a story, I would have
read all of your examples comfortably without noticing the grammar at all.
Voragh will likely follow up with a barrage of canon supporting my
instincts, but I'm looking at HoS QaymeH 'och on the BOP poster right now.
- Qov
At 02:40 30/08/2011, you wrote:
>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>
