[tlhIngan Hol] Apposition on wI'-nouns

[Will Martin]

I respectfully disagree. I think the longer term we are using here really is a form of apposition.

I’d read this difference as: “water bottle” {bIQ bal} is the normal construction genitive construction because this is a general type of thing in common life experience, (it’s the water’s bottle, or the bottle of water) but I might say, “radio transmitter, the device” {wab labwI’ jan} vs. “radio transmitter, the person” {wab labwI’ nuv}. He wouldn’t tell us to use a comma simply because he doesn’t ever talk about punctuation, since the Klingon language that Maltz reveals to us is a spoken language and we write it down phonetically. As humans writing Klingon, we may create conventions for punctuation, but Okrand doesn’t want to talk about that because that’s not what he’s focussed on.

There is no comma in the Klingon version of “Kahless, the Unforgettable”.

I see {wab labwI’ jan} as a form of apposition, since it’s two nouns (or noun phrases) referring to the same entity, but describing it differently. It’s a radio transmitter, and it’s a device, or he’s a radio transmitter and he’s a person, much like we would say, “My next door neighbor, the plumber.”

It’s not really that “the plumber" DESCRIBES my next door neighbor. My next door neighbor and the plumber are the same entity, but by naming that entity two ways, I present a more specific identity. I may have multiple next door neighbors. I may have multiple plumbers, but only one entity is both my next door neighbor AND a plumber.

There are lots of radio transmitters and lots of devices… The thing I’m talking about is both.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Feb 22, 2020, at 8:15 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 2/22/2020 4:03 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
>> Am 21.02.2020 um 18:42 schrieb SuStel: 
>>> The word is /genitive./ The first noun [...] 
>>> 
>>> *bIQ bal* /water jug 
>> [...] 
>>> Apposition, on the other hand, is where two nouns or noun phrases are 
>>> side by side, and one further identifies the other. 
>> 
>> Okay, I think I understand. But how is the following interpreted then? 
>> 
>> We were told the word {wab labwI'} means "radio". We were also told that 
>> if it was need to distinguish the broadcaster from the device, you may 
>> add {jan}. 
>> 
>> Expanding this, I could probably say {wab labwI' qach}, {wab labwI' 
>> malja'}, {wab labwI' loD}... etc. 
>> 
>> The second part of this nn-construction might be labeled as "identifier". 
> In linguistics, the correct word for the second noun would be the head noun.
> 
> 
> 
>> I may even accept that it's still a genetive construction, BUT why is it 
>> turned around? 
>> 
>> For instance, in {bIQ bal} the identifier comes first: WATER bottle 
>> instead of "BEER bottle". 
>> 
>> In the phrase {wab labwI' jan}, it's not {wab labwI'} identifiying the 
>> kind of {jan}, it's the {jan} word which is telling you what kind of 
>> {wab labwI'} you talk about.
> You're confusing how Okrand is describing something and the grammar behind it. When Okrand says you can distinguish which kind of wab labwI' by adding a word like jan, what he means is you can talk about a different head noun to make the distinction. Instead of talking about a transmitter, which can be a person or a device the person is using (in English, too), you can talk about a device, which is only one thing. wab labwI' jan is a noun-noun construction in which the genitive noun (phrase) is wab labwI', and the head noun is jan. Okrand is not saying you're adding a genitive noun, and you're not; he's only giving you a way to clarify that you mean a device instead of a person.
> 
> 
> 
>> In addition to thins thought, {wab labwI'} 
>> CAN stand alone and still mean the same when context is clear.
> More specifically, it can stand alone when the speaker doesn't need to know whether you're talking about a person sending a signal or the device used to send that signal.
> 
> 
> 
>> If the 
>> word {bIQ} stands alone, it is never connected to the idea of a bottle, 
>> but {bal} is. 
> Because there is no double possibility as to what bIQ means.
> 
> 
> 
>> Compare this: 
>> 
>> {wab labwI' vIpoQ. wab labwI' jan vIpoQ.} 
>> I need a radio. I mean, a radio DEVICE. 
> As opposed to the person who transmitted sounds, who is also a wab labwI'.
> 
> 
> 
>> {bal vIpoQ. bIQ bal vIpoQ.} 
>> "I need a bottle. I mean, a WATER bottle" 
>> 
>> See the difference? 
> In the first sentence, you're changing head nouns to make it clear what you're talking about. In the second sentence, you're adding a genitive noun to clarify the sense of the head noun, but never changing the head noun.
> 
> 
> 
>> Now this is my serious question: 
>> Where is the difference? And does it have a name? 
> These are two completely different grammatical operations, so there is no name.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200224/c4ff8c04/attachment-0016.htm>