[tlhIngan Hol] "Seasons of Love" in Klingon / And two grammatical questions

[Will Martin]

I’m guessing that one is seeking an unambiguous expression that controls whether one is to understand that the woman owns the money and the book, or whether the woman owns the money and not the book.

It would be easy to do if not saddled with the additional requirement that this level of unambiguous expression all happen in one phrase.

My advice is either to stick to the one phrase and accept that language is frequently ambiguous and this is either unimportant or context will disambiguate, or if clarity is all that crucial on this point, take the effort to express exactly what you want, even if it takes more than one phrase.

Huch paq je ghaj be. Dochmeyvammo’ …

Or

Huch ghaj be’. paq ghaj loD. Huchvammo’ paqvammo’ je...

> On Jan 9, 2022, at 7:43 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 1/8/2022 11:13 AM, luis.chaparro at web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro at web.de> wrote:
>> SuStel:
>> 
>>>> I've also found this canonical example: *quwargh tach Qe' je qoDDaq Hov leng Soj DatIv* (*Enjoy Star Trek themed food and drink at Quark's Bar and Restaurant*). The structure is: [noun + (noun noun je)] + noun. But theoretically, it could also be *at the interior of Quark's Bar and the Restaurant*: [(noun + noun) noun je] + noun. Is that correct?
>>> I feel confident that quwargh tach Qe' je is the name of the establishment, and is being treated as a single unit. The qoDDaq is very interesting: I suspect it was included to side-step the issue of where to put the -Daq on quwargh tach Qe' je. Do you say quwargh tach Qe' jeDaq? Do you say quwargh tachDaq Qe'Daq je? By adding the qoD, the problem is avoided. Nothing in the English suggests any reason to call out the interior, specifically. I think it was purely a grammatical trick.
>> If I understand you correctly, where to put the *-Daq* is problematic because *quwargh tach Qe' je* is treated as a single unit, as a *name* (so one could think maybe the *-Daq* comes at the very end).
>> 
>> However, in a case like *be' Huch paq je*, which isn't treated as a unit, if I wanted to say, for example, *because of the woman's money and book*, would this be acceptable: *be' Huchmo' paqmo' je*? I know we put the Type 5 suffix in each conjoined noun (*Huchmo' paqmo' je*), but does it also work when a noun-noun construction is included? And if it does, could *be' Huchmo' paqmo' je* also mean *because of the woman's money and the book*? (DloraH's interpretation being *be'mo' Huch paqmo' je*).
> I can't follow what you're asking. Just put the type 5 noun suffixes on the appropriate place of each conjoined item, whether the item is a single noun, a noun-noun construction, a relative clause, a verbally modified noun, or something else.
> 
> -- 
> 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/20220109/29abd089/attachment-0002.htm>