[96696] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] "up to" or "as many as"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Sat Jul 13 02:47:13 2013
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:46:41 +1000
In-Reply-To: <9C91B3B0-A131-4E45-BFD1-DE37302374C0@alcaco.net>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============4010564950709561160==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_8acfff91-56ee-4f81-aed3-ca358b90cb5e_"
--_8acfff91-56ee-4f81-aed3-ca358b90cb5e_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI'=2C jatlh:
> For what it's worth=2C I prefer {jav DuHbe'bogh Doch} over {DuHbe'bogh
> jav Doch} here. I see nothing wrong or even unusual with putting a
> relative clause in the second noun of a noun-noun phrase.
As I said previously=2C it's true that there is no formal rule prohibiting =
it=2C but purely from a canon standpoint I still argue that idiomatic Kling=
on probably avoids constructing noun-noun constructions of this form if at =
all possible. Having had the chance to look a little more thoroughly=2C I'v=
e located two more clear examples to add to the two I posted yesterday=2C a=
nd consequently I'm even more convinced that stylistic preference is not a =
strong enough argument to ignore canon here:
yIntaHbogh tlhIngan Soj tlhol
"raw Klingon food which is still alive" (S21)
(not *"living Klingons' raw food")
joqtaHbogh molor tIqDu'
"Molor's still-beating hearts" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 23.47)
(not *"the hearts of the still-beating Molor")
pubtaHbogh ghargh HIq vItlhutlh
"I will drink boiling wormwine" (PK)
(not *"I will drink boiling-worm wine")
yuQDaq ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'
"each Klingon on the planet" (paq'batlh: paq'QIH 3.32)
(not *"the Klingons of each [person] who is on the planet")
I could find only a single possible counterexample=2C and even that's highl=
y ambiguous:
molor chalqach 'avlu'bogh pIrmuS lupawta'
"they reach the base of Molor's guarded tower" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 18.13-14=
)
{molor chalqach 'avlu'bogh} could indeed be a genuine noun-noun constructio=
n with a relative =0A=
clause as the second noun phrase - the English gloss would indicate [N1 mol=
or N2 [RelP chalqach 'avlu'bogh]]=2C "Molor's tower which is guarded" - but=
since the translation is a free one=2C it could be just a bog-standard =0A=
relative clause with a noun-noun construction as its grammatical object: an=
underlying structure of [RelP [N1 molor N2 chalqach] 'avlu'bogh] "the towe=
r of Molor=2C which is guarded" is equally possible.
> As for the original question=2C I don't think the general case is importa=
nt enough
> to need a general solution. Usually I think I would just leave out the id=
ea.
Agreed.
QeS
=
--_8acfff91-56ee-4f81-aed3-ca358b90cb5e_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI'=2C jatlh:<=
br>>=3B For what it's worth=2C I prefer {jav DuHbe'bogh Doch} over {DuHbe=
'bogh<br>>=3B jav Doch} here. I see nothing wrong or even unusual with pu=
tting a<br>>=3B relative clause in the second noun of a noun-noun phrase.=
<br><br>As I said previously=2C it's true that there is no formal rule proh=
ibiting it=2C but purely from a canon standpoint I still argue that idiomat=
ic Klingon probably avoids constructing noun-noun constructions of this for=
m if at all possible. Having had the chance to look a little more thoroughl=
y=2C I've located two more clear examples to add to the two I posted yester=
day=2C and consequently I'm even more convinced that stylistic preference i=
s not a strong enough argument to ignore canon here:<br><br>yIntaHbogh tlhI=
ngan Soj tlhol<br>"raw Klingon food which is still alive" (S21)<br>(not *"l=
iving Klingons' raw food")<br><br>joqtaHbogh molor tIqDu'<br>"Molor's still=
-beating hearts" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 23.47)<br>(not *"the hearts of the sti=
ll-beating Molor")<br><br>pubtaHbogh ghargh HIq vItlhutlh<br>"I will drink =
boiling wormwine" (PK)<br>(not *"I will drink boiling-worm wine")<br><br>yu=
QDaq ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'<br>"each Klingon on the planet" (paq'batl=
h: paq'QIH 3.32)<br>(not *"the Klingons of each [person] who is on the plan=
et")<br><br>I could find only a single possible counterexample=2C and even =
that's highly ambiguous:<br><br>molor chalqach 'avlu'bogh pIrmuS lupawta'<b=
r>"they reach the base of Molor's guarded tower" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 18.13-=
14)<br><br>{molor chalqach 'avlu'bogh} could indeed be a genuine noun-noun =
construction with a relative =0A=
clause as the second noun phrase - the English gloss would indicate [N1 mol=
or N2 [RelP chalqach 'avlu'bogh]]=2C "Molor's tower which is guarded" - but=
since the translation is a free one=2C it could be just a bog-standard =0A=
relative clause with a noun-noun construction as its grammatical object: an=
underlying structure of [RelP [N1 molor N2 chalqach] 'avlu'bogh] "the towe=
r of Molor=2C which is guarded" is equally possible.<br><br><div>>=3B As =
for the original question=2C I don't think the general case is important en=
ough<br>>=3B to need a general solution. Usually I think I would just lea=
ve out the idea.<br><br>Agreed.<br><br>QeS<br></div> </div></bod=
y>
</html>=
--_8acfff91-56ee-4f81-aed3-ca358b90cb5e_--
--===============4010564950709561160==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============4010564950709561160==--
