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

[SuStel]

On 1/7/2022 8:42 AM, luis.chaparro at web.de wrote:
> I would like to ask two more questions on these subjects:
>
> De'vID:
>   
>>  From {nIn Hoch} "all [of] the fuel" on p.155 of KGT, we know that {Hoch} following a noun means "all of X".
> The meaning "all of X" is not restricted to uncountable nouns, right? So I could also say: *paq Hoch*, meaning *all of the book* or *the entire book / the whole of the book*.

Yes. If we suppose that *Hoch* following a noun works the same as 
*HochHom* following a noun has been observed to work, and I do suppose 
this, then it shouldn't matter whether the noun is countable or uncountable.


> Me:
>
>> 2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples?
> If I understand it right, while the option *(noun noun je) + noun* can't be ambiguous, the opposite *noun + (noun noun je)* could have another interpretation depending on context:
>
> *be' Huch paq je* - the woman's money and book [noun + (noun noun je)]
>                      the woman's money and the book [(noun + noun) noun je]
>
> Am I right? Maybe punctuation could help: *be' Huch, paq je* for the second interpretation?

I recommend /always/ putting commas between /every/ conjoined noun 
phrase, even if it's just something like *nuH**, pegh**je vIlegh.* If it 
is standard to always use commas, then the meaning will never be 
ambiguous. (*pegh nuH je vIlegh.* Do I see the secret and the weapon, or 
do I see the secret of the weapon? Did I not use a comma because it's 
just two simple nouns instead of complex noun phrases, or do I intend a 
noun-noun phrase? If commas are standard, this question never arises.)


> 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.

Theoretically, this could mean /in the interiors of: Quark's bar; and 
the restaurant,/ as if the bar and the restaurant are two separate 
things, the bar being owned by Quark, but that's clearly not what's 
intended.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220107/783fa081/attachment-0004.htm>