<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/1/2017 4:45 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:526108c6-6042-ed8c-0e59-bb4d75bd0dc4@gmx.de">first of
all, how would you linguistically call that what I am talking
about?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>In your subject, you call these things "purpose-clause compound
nouns." Strictly speaking, none of these are compound nouns, which
in TKD are individual words consisting of multiple nouns. All of
your examples may be described as noun phrases, but you can't get
more specific when describing all of them. They break down into
purpose clauses and genitive phrases.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:526108c6-6042-ed8c-0e59-bb4d75bd0dc4@gmx.de">
I have noticed that some words are translated like {pe'meH taj}
"cutting knife", while others use -wI': {toSwI' qal'aq} "jungle
gym".
<br>
<br>
And then, sometimes I wondered, why -wI' and not -meH?
<br>
<br>
Of course, all phrases make sense in both ways, but is there a
difference? Why is it not {toSmeH qal'aq} "structure for
climbing"? Why say {chevwI' tlhoy'} and not {chevmeH tlhoy'} for
"territiorial wall"?
<br>
"suntan lotion" is translated as {DIr QanwI' taS} - why not {DIr
QanmeH taS}?
<br>
<br>
What do you think about that?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I think it's arbitrary, and you just have to learn which way it's
said. I also think you wouldn't be particularly wrong if you said
<b>chevmeH tlhoy'</b> instead of <b>chevwI' tlhoy',</b> for
example. It would be like the difference between <i>border wall</i>
and <i>wall of the border:</i> one is said and the other isn't,
but the other is still perfectly understandable.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:526108c6-6042-ed8c-0e59-bb4d75bd0dc4@gmx.de">
Next, I think there is also a difference between combinations
where the meH-ed verb directly influences the noun (pe'meH taj
means that the knife is for cutting) while other situations are
just real noun-noun combinations (as in {nISwI' DaH} which is a
"array of disruptors" and not a "array to disrupt").
<br>
<br>
I'm just lacking the right terms to say what I think, so maybe you
can clarify.
</blockquote>
<p>Genitive is a broad concept, and Klingon noun-nouns seem to
embrace that breadth. You seem to be sensing sub-types of
genitive. Here's a page that breaks down various types that appear
in Latin: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/genitive.html"><http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/genitive.html></a>.
Klingon grammar treats them all the same.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>