[tlhIngan Hol] verbs with {-bogh} and numbers

[nIqolay Q]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> How about a *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'** Romulan
> hunter-killer probe *(KCD)? It is explicitly NOT a probe that hunts and
> kills Romulans; it is a probe of Romulan manufacture that hunts and kills.
> That's some canon evidence of using a relative clause as the second noun of
> a noun-noun construction. Your aesthetic sense would make you say *Sambogh
> 'ej HoHbogh romuluSngan nejwI',* but that's not what we get.
>
That's true: my own personal aesthetic sense would make me say *Sambogh 'ej
HoHbogh romuluSngan nejwI'*. That's not what we get, because Okrand isn't
me, and he presumably has his own stylistic preferences. But I don't think
it's unreasonable to prefer one grammatical phrasing over another, even if
Okrand doesn't share that preference. In the right context, or if they're
aware of it as a phrase from canon, readers will understand the intended
meaning of *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'*. Since Okrand wrote it,
we know it's a grammatical expression and that Klingons consider the
phrasing stylistically acceptable. But I don't think it's necessarily the *best
*way to express that idea, because it can be misinterpreted.

Since the difference between mayqel's two examples is primarily one of
stylistic preference, I was sharing mine: that in general, sentences are
clearer if you keep the parts of N-N and number-N constructions together.
It's a habit I stick to even in cases where doing it the other way has no
potential for confusion. mayqel doesn't have to agree.

> It's all about scope. A *Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh **romuluSngan nejwI'* is a
> "Romulan probe" that "hunts and kills." Of all Romulan probes, this is the
> kind that hunts and kills. A *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'* is
> a Romulan "probe that hunts and kills." Of all hunter-killer probes, this
> is the Romulan kind.
>
I'm sure there are cases where the distinction between *A (Vbogh B)* and *Vbogh
(A B)* would be relevant enough that it's worth splitting the N-N
construction with the relative clause (though I'm having trouble thinking
of a good one off the top of my head). Speaking personally, though, I don't
think the distinction between "Romulan (probe that hunts and kills)" and
"(Romulan probe) that hunts and kills" is very important in most cases.
Either way, you know what things the probe does and who's responsible if it
does those things. With that in mind, rather than emphasize a scope
distinction I don't think is important, I would choose the phrasing I think
is clearer. Okrand chose another phrasing for his own reasons.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171019/9d69676d/attachment.htm>