[tlhIngan Hol] {vaD}ed nouns

[mayqel qunenoS]

lieven:
>  TKD, chapter 3.4 The noun-noun-construction says [..]

While I was wondering about the {vaD}ed nouns this rule came to mind,
but I hoped there was a way to "work around it". But it was too good
to be true..

SapIr:
> I suspect that the Klingon for "security organization" would probably
> look just like the English: {Hung 'obe'}. You wouldn't need a {vaD}.

I agree. I just used the {HungvaD 'obe'}, as an example of a {vaD}ed noun.

SapIr:
> Another question worth asking, though, is whether a {'obe'} can see
> something in Klingon

This is a good question. Perhaps an {'obe'} can't actually see, and
this possibility came to mind while I was writing the example. But I
used it anyway, because at the moment it was the only example that
came to mind.

qunnoH

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:19 PM, kechpaja <kechpaja at comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:58:37AM +0100, Lieven wrote:
>> Am 01.11.2016 um 09:27 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
>> > The answer will probably be no, but what the ghe'tor I'll ask anyway.
>>
>> bIghelbe'chugh vaj not bISovchoH.
>>
>> > Can we say:
>> >
>> > HeSwI' leghpu' HungvaD 'obe'
>> > the organization for security saw the prisoner ?
>>
>> Clearly not. TKD, chapter 3.4 The noun-noun-construction says "When the
>> noun-noun-construction is used, only the second noun can take syntactic
>> suffixes (Type 5)".
>>
>> That is:
>> {HungvaD 'obe'} NO
>> {Hung 'obe'vaD} YES
>
> I suspect that the Klingon for "security organization" would probably
> look just like the English: {Hung 'obe'}. You wouldn't need a {vaD}.
>
> Another question worth asking, though, is whether a {'obe'} can see
> something in Klingon. In English we use metonymy of that sort all the
> time, but a Klingon might be confused by why you didn't say {Hung yaS}
> or something like that instead.
>
>  - SapIr
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org