[tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: 'aSya'

[nIqolay Q]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

>
> On 13 Jul 2017 7:24 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH}
>>> > "island"
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this preferably be {bIQ puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ?
>>>
>>
>> MO tends to lean towards using noun-noun phrases rather than compound
>> nouns but IIRC he's said that it's not a big deal to prefer one way over
>> the other (or something to that effect, at least).
>>
> On 7/13/2017 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> So we can glue two nouns together ?
>
> Let's take the phrase *baS 'In* *metal drum.* Let's suppose you've
> learned it as a single word, *baS'In.* Now tell me the word for a drum
> that you THINK is made of metal.
>
> If you said *baS'InHey,* that means *thing you think is a metal drum,*
> not something you know is a drum but which you only think is made of metal.
>
> If you said *baSHey'In,* okay, that means what I asked, but now you can
> put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really dealing with two
> words after all, and just taking away the space punctuation? Exactly what
> have you accomplished by "gluing" those nouns together, then taking them
> apart again long enough to shove a suffix in there? How is it any different
> than just saying *baSHey 'In?*
>
Let's take the phrase *DIvI' may' Duj* *Federation battle cruiser.* Let's
suppose you've learned it as a single word, *DIvI'may'Duj.* Now tell me the
word for a battle cruiser that is affiliated with a group you THINK is the
Federation.

If you said *DIvI'may'DujHey,* that means *thing you think is a Federation
battle cruiser,* not something you know is a battle cruiser but which is
affiliated with a group you only think is the Federation.

If you said *DIvI'Heymay'Duj,* okay, that means what I asked, but now you
can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really dealing with
three words after all, and just taking away the space punctuation? Exactly
what have you accomplished by "gluing" those nouns together, then taking
them apart again long enough to shove a suffix in there? How is it any
different than just saying *DIvI'Hey may' Duj?*

To be less of a *petaQ* about it: The point of leaving out spaces between
nouns and/or making them into a single compound noun is to emphasize the
relationship between those nouns, to say that both (or all three) concepts
are inherent or essential parts of the thing being discussed, and not
merely incidental. To use a contrived example, *maS puH Duj* could be
written as, say, *maS puHDuj* (to emphasize that this is a land vehicle,
and that, incidentally, it is on the moon or somehow related to a moon, but
the concept of doing things on a moon is not an essential part of its
nature) or perhaps *maSpuH Duj* (to emphasize that the moon's terrain is a
significant concept in and of itself -- perhaps it has some unique
geological feature -- and then, additionally, there's a vehicle that is
somehow involved with that terrain that is being discussed), or just
straight up *maSpuHDuj* (which would emphasize that being on moon land is
an inherent part of the vehicle's design, like, say, an Apollo lunar
rover). In the end, of course *maS puH Duj* and *maSpuHDuj* mean pretty
much the same thing, but there are nuances and connotations that can be
suggested by how the nouns are grouped together.
Personally, I don't usually combine noun-noun phrases into a single word
(mostly because it's a contentious issue). If I did, I'd mostly just stick
to existing noun-noun phrases for which we have set meanings (like *SorHap*
for wood, *muDDuj* for airplane, or *ghav'uSqan* for steel) since my
intended meaning would have an obvious precedent. And I wouldn't mind if
someone else used *SorHap* et al. either. Conversely, I don't think I'd
accept a simple possessive construction as a compound, since a thing's
owner is rarely an inherent part of its "essential nature"*.* (Although
this is not always the case, e.g., battle cruisers owned by the
Federation.)

It's important to avoid confusion and be understood, but to be honest I
think this issue is far less prone to hazards than it's being presented as
here.

> Related question: If you're squishing words together (and not using
> slang), is a *DeSHom* an arm-bone or a minor arm?
>
Is *DIS* a year or a cave? You have to tell from context, just like every
other homonym in Klingon. I'd probably avoid *DeSHom* for arm-bone even if
I were more inclined to make compound nouns, since it's not really a set
phrase like *Sor Hap* and because *-Hom* is an actual suffix. But in a
bone-related context (or any context where the idea of a "minor arm" was
more nonsensical than "arm bone", which is probably most contexts), I would
probably interpret it as "arm-bone" and just shrug off the ambiguity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170713/733f7aea/attachment-0017.htm>