[tlhIngan Hol] describing baby animals

[mayqel qunen'oS]

SuStel:
> ngavyaw’ ghu = canine’s baby or baby of the canine = puppy
> ghu ngavyaw’ = baby’s canine or canine of the baby = baby’s pet
> You forget the more general genitive interpretation of the noun-noun construction.
> I'm not going to address this question directly, because baby and canine are both
> nouns and adjectives, and this confuses the translations. Instead, I'm going to
> translate an idea that deals strictly in nouns. How about a student who is a child?
> ghojwI' puq student child
> puq ghojwI' child student
> Which is it? Is it a child (head noun) of the type student (modifying noun)?
> Or is it a student (head noun) of the type child (modifying noun)?
> It's both. Either is correct. It's a child who is a student and a student who is a child.
> So, completely ignoring semantics, is it
> ngavyaw' ghu canine baby
> or
> ghu ngavyaw' baby canine
> ?
> It's both. Either is correct. It's a baby that is a canine, and it's a canine that is a baby.

maj. De'vam vIyaj. 'a latlh vay''e' qaghel vIneH.

"empress" jImugh vIneH. cha' DuH tu'lu': {be' voDleH} {voDleH be'} je,
'ej lughlaw' Hoch. 'a "empress" DamughnIS net jalchugh, nuq 'oH DuH'e'
DamaSbogh ? chay' bIwuq ?

vuDlIj vISov vIneH.

~ Qa'yIn