[tlhIngan Hol] noun-noun constructions and interpreting a missing {-'e'} in N2 of N1 meaning

[SuStel]

On 6/29/2022 7:53 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
> If I want to say noun 2 of noun 1, I say N1 N2.
>
> Now suppose that N1 is the object of a {-bogh} phrase (which has a 
> subject too), and suppose that I want to say N2 of N1.
>
> Normally, I'd write {N1'e' Vbogh subject N2}, but the problem is that 
> we can't have the {-'e'} on the first noun of a noun-noun construction.
>
> So, now, the question is this:
>
> If I write {N1 Vbogh subject N2}, and the context is clear, can this 
> phrase be used to mean "N2 of N1"? Or the fact that we can't place an 
> {-'e'} on the N1, excludes any such interpretation?
>
> And I'll write an example:
>
> yoD chenmoHpu'bogh tlhIngan rItlh lIngqa'meH nov, nIDpu'.
>
> "the alien has tried to reproduce the paint of the shield which was 
> created by the klingon"
>
> If the context is clear, would this be a valid way to express the 
> english sentence? Or is it that the only way for the klingon sentence 
> to match the english one, is for it (the klingon one) to have the 
> {-'e'} on the {yoD} something which is not allowed?


Are you asking for grammatical validity or an opinion on whether what 
you said is clear? It's perfectly grammatical and not at all understandable.

Don't put *-'e'* where it's not allowed.

*yoD chenmoHpu' tlhIngan. yoD rItlh lInqa'pu' nov 'e' nID.*

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220629/5f1e4aaa/attachment-0015.htm>