[tlhIngan Hol] baS 'In

[Lieven L. Litaer]

Thanks De'vID for explaining this, you understand what I'm talking
about. With your permission, I'll add these wordings (with small
changes) to the Klingon wiki, because it might be interesting for other
speakers as well.

Lieven.


Am 29.01.2024 um 08:48 schrieb De'vID via tlhIngan-Hol:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 7:47 AM Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol
> <tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org <mailto: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
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.tlhInganHol.com
http://klingon.wiki/En/AliceInWonderland