<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 10/19/2017 3:36 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOus_LeoG_pctJk-FO=18OBeiG87DHSo5swtWP=g3e_FxA@mail.gmail.com">In
the right context, or if they're aware of it as a phrase from
canon, readers will understand the intended meaning of <b>romuluSngan
Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'</b>. Since Okrand wrote it, we know
it's a grammatical expression and that Klingons consider the
phrasing stylistically acceptable. But I don't think it's
necessarily the <i>best </i>way to express that idea, because it
can be misinterpreted.</blockquote>
<p>Is it any more ambiguous than the English <i>Romulan
hunter-killer probe?</i> Is that a hunter-killer probe that
hunts and kills Romulans or a hunter-killer probe of Romulan make?
Why isn't it a <i>hunter-killer Romulan probe?</i> Doesn't <i>hunter-killer
Romulan probe</i> sound just plain WRONG to you, even though it
can't be misinterpreted?</p>
<p>Here's why it sounds wrong (there are alternative versions of
this):
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/about-adjectives-and-adverbs/adjectives-order">http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/about-adjectives-and-adverbs/adjectives-order</a></p>
<p>In this scheme, <i>Romulan</i> is type 7 (origin) and <i>hunter-killer</i>
is type 10 (purpose).</p>
<p>Does Klingon obey those rules? No idea. But when a native English
speaker invents the language and translates into it, it's possible
that he is unconsciously following those rules. I wouldn't declare
this sort of thing solved, but it's worth examining Okrand's
possible biases in this light.<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>