[tlhIngan Hol] {vaD}ed nouns

[kechpaja]

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