[984] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: verbs in compounds (was: Re: epithets (taHqeq))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jun 15 06:46:18 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 05:14:12 -0400
> I (A.Appleyard) wrote, explaining that my analyser analysed `taHqeq` thus:-
>- S:$%^&_epithet*
>- V:be_at_negative_angle V:[practise|train|prepare]
>- V:be_at_negative_angle N:drill_mil
>- V:[continue|go_on|endure]* V:[practise|train|prepare]
>- V:[continue|go_on|endure]* N:drill_mil
>i.e "someone enduring at army drill" or "someone who does his army drill at a
>negative angle".
> Ken Beesley replied:
> > I believe that the final four solutions are invalid, involving a verb
>compounding with another verb or with a noun. Unless I have missed something,
>such constructions are not allowed in the morphotactics of Klingon. Have I
>missed something? If I'm right, then a morphological analyzer for Klingon
>should not return these pseudo-solutions. I welcome correction.
> Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com> replied on Sun 13 Jun 93
>04:25:53 -0400 (Subject: Re: epithets (taHqeq)):-
> > You have missed nothing; you are absolutely correct. The last four
>pseudo-solutions are not valid, for the reasons you point to.
> I have found nothing in TKD to say what Klingon compounds can be made of.
Then you might want to read 3.2.1, p.19.
>Verbs occur in compound nouns in English, e.g. "blow" in "blowtorch" and "pry"
>in "pry bar". And since English adjectives are translated into Klingon as
>verbs, how to translate into Klingon the very common 'bahuvrihi' type of
>English adjective + noun compound 'XY' meaning "someone or something whose Y
>is X", e.g. "redhead"? The obvious translation is `Doqjib` or `Doqnach`, but
>`Doq` is a verb.
Obvious? I think not. The only thing obvious about it is that that
is what one would get if one assumed that Klingon syntax for doing
such things were identical to English. If I had been forced to
guess at an obvious translation, I would have come up with jIbDoq,
following that adjectival syntax for verbs. But the point is, there
is no rule that allows us to do this. You are just making it up.
For all we know, the correct way might be jIbDaqDoqwI'. Or
jIbDoqghajwI'. Or jIbDoqnuv. Or maybe you simply can't make a
compound like that at all. The point is, we don't know, and you
can't just go guessing or assuming. In particular, while there
might be extreme occasions in real usage-- say, if someone were
writing a story and *really* needed a way to say "red head"-- that
one *might* be inclined to "look the other way" at jIbDoq, none-the-
less I *certainly* can't see any justification for building such
syntax into an analyser, which, by definition is expected to adhere
strictly to the rules of the language. (Or perhaps I'm
misunderstanding the point of an analyser; my only knowlege of them
is what I've picked up from Ken).
> And `taHqeq` can likewise be read bahuvrihi as "someone whose
>`qeq` is `taH`" = "someone whose army drill is enduring or at a negative
>angle".
Again, this is true only if/when it is established that Klingon
supports bahuvrihi in the same manner as English.
--Krankor
