[tlhIngan Hol] baS 'In

[De'vID]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 7:47 AM Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol <
tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org> wrote:

> I am not sure how to explain that in English or Klingon grammar terms,
> but I have a feeling that there are two kinds of noun noun construction,
> even thoug they are both declared a genitive: One is like a way to
> decribe the sort of a thing, the other is a possessive contstruction.
>

The genitive construction can be used to denote (among other things)
attributive or possessive relationships.

I think this may be confusing to German speakers because German uses the
attributive genitive to indicate possession, and uses compounding
(Komposita) to indicate attribution when a noun functions as an adjective.
Thus, one wouldn't normally say "die Glocke des Eisens" but "die
Eisenglocke". But in Klingon, N1-N2 is "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1" and can
indicate both attribution and possession.

See, {baS 'In} is a bell made of metal. When I talk about {HoD 'In} it's
> the bell of the captain. A less ambiguous example might be this:
>
> {HoD qab vIlegh}
> "I see the captain's face"
>
> Here, the face belongs to the captain. That's why the English
> translation uses the ['s].
>
> Theoretically, one could argue you can omit that. Then, the meaning
> would change to "a captain face" - parallel to a "pokerface". In that
> case, one does not use the ['s] when translating to Klingon.
>
> I do not intend to superimpose something into Klingon grammar what isn't
> intended to be there. Maybe Klingon grammarians do not see the
> difference. But I believe that semantically, there is a difference.
>
> compare
> I want to buy the captain's boots. [those he's wearing]
> vs.
> I want to buy some captain boots. [a type of boots]
>
> In some cases like above it's ambiguous in Klingon (HoD DaS), but
> sometimes it's clear that a {baS 'In} is definitely not an {'In} that is
> owned by the {baS}. Instead, it's an {'In} /made of/ {baS}.
>
> I hope anyone understands my point. I am not a linguist.
>

This type of ambiguity exists in English also. For example, the {Daqtagh}
is a "warrior's knife". In context, we know it means "a knife meant to be
used or carried by a warrior" (attribution with "warrior" functioning as an
adjective, perhaps "das Kriegermesser" in German; indeed, I see that is the
actual German translation you provided for {boQwI'}). But "a warrior's
knife" could also mean "a knife belonging to a particular warrior"
(possession, "das Messer des Kriegers").

As in English, context usually disambiguates. If I'm talking about a
specific captain and I refer to "the captain's boots" ("die Stiefel des
Kapitäns"), you know I'm talking about boots belonging to a specific
person. If I'm in a boot distribution centre for the Klingon Defense Force
and they give out different kinds of boots to different ranks, and I ask
for "the captain['s] boots" (perhaps "Kapitänsstiefel"), you know I'm
talking about a type of boot. Here, Klingon and English are similarly
ambiguous, whereas German distinguishes the two cases, and I think that's
what you're getting at.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20240129/8649bdfc/attachment.htm>