<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>It’s worth noting that in boQwI’, all of the vocabulary examples of either compound nouns or noun phrases containing {bID} have it following the other noun. That doesn’t preclude the use of {bID} before another noun, but it does suggest that there would be something unusual about a noun-noun construction with {bID} before the other noun.</div><div><br></div><div>The only canon example of {bID} preceding the other noun listed in boQwI’ is from the Bird of Prey poster:</div><div><br></div><div>{cha’ choQmey naQ tu’lu’ ‘ej tep choQ bIngDaq lo’ law’ bID choQ tu’lu’.} “2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck”</div><div><br></div><div>It’s not a direct translation, since the English version lacks any verb and isn’t a grammatical sentence, serving as a label, while the Klingon is a grammatical sentence, more literally translated as:</div><div><br></div><div>"There are two full decks and there is a half utility deck under the cargo deck."</div><div><br></div><div>That phrase {lo’ law’ bID choQ} / “half utility deck” is interesting in that it’s not noun-noun. It’s noun-noun-noun (counting {lo’ law’} as a single noun), which is fairly uncommon in canon, and we haven’t had any explanations as to how to interpret such a construction. Going with what we understand, it could be “utility’s half’s deck”, or “deck of the half of utility”. Either of these suggest that it’s a [full?] deck that is half useful, as opposed to a fully useful half-deck, or I guess that half of the ship’s utilities are on the full deck, as opposed to all of the utilities being on the half deck.</div><div><br></div><div>This would also fit the “look for what is most like other canon” approach and say that {lo’ law’ bID} puts {bID} after the noun, like everywhere else in canon we’ve seen, and once again, we get “half utility” instead of “half deck”.</div><div><br></div><div>So, somehow {bID choQ} is supposed to be recognized as “half deck”, if we are to match the English translation, and that is just weird, compared to all the other entries, like {DIr paH bID}, {paH bID}, or {yopwaH bID}. A pair of shorts is a pair of half-pants, and the {bID} follows the noun. A kilt is a half-dress, and the {bID} follows the noun.</div><div><br></div><div>Clearly, it’s supposed to be “half deck of utility” or “utility’s half deck”, and as such, it’s weirdly arranged. Either it’s a mistake, or something is going on here that Okrand has failed to explain to us, or I’m just not thinking deeply enough to plow through this. So, we continue...</div><div><br></div><div>So, if we might want to use it like a number, which could precede a noun, or follow it, with the meaning determined by the special rules of numbers, but we’re not told that {bID} is a number. We’re just told that it’s a noun. It’s not mentioned in TKD in the section that describes numbers.</div><div><br></div><div>Then again, we have {Hoch}, which is similarly considered a noun and not a number, so the general rules of the genitive noun-noun apply and we additionally have, from canon, derived special rules for {Hoch}, such that {Hoch SuvwI’pu’} means “all the soldiers”, and {Hoch SuvwI’} means “each soldier”, and {SuvwI’pu' Hoch} means “All of the soldiers” and {SuvwI’ Hoch} means “All of the soldier”.</div><div><br></div><div>So, with this as a template, {bID choQmey} would mean “half of the decks”, and {bID choQ} would mean… I don’t know… I can’t wrap my head around introducing the difference between “all of” and “each of” to {bID}. It’s easier to interpret {choQmey bID} as “half of the decks” and {choQ bID} as “half of the deck”.</div><div><br></div><div>So, if we are trying to differentiate “half of the deck” from “the half deck”, I could see {bID choQ} meaning “half-deck”, but then why do we not say {bID yopwaH} for “shorts” or {bID DIr} for “kilt”?</div><div><br></div><div>So… basically, you’ve asked a great question, illuminating one of those really messy little nooks and crannies of Klingon vocabulary. Apparently {bID} followed by a noun means “a half [whatever the noun is], if the noun is singular, WITH EXCEPTIONS MADE FOR EVERY SINGLE EXPLICIT USE OF {bID} IN THE REVEALED KLINGON VOCABULARY.</div><div><br></div><div>My guess is that an earlier Emperor always used {bID} after a noun to mean “half-[noun]”, and the vocabulary fossilized with this rule, and a more recent Emperor decided to precede a noun with {bID} for this meaning, so you should precede a noun with {bID} for this meaning, but remember all the exceptions of earlier vocabulary that includes {bID}. Besides the aforementioned three vocabulary entries, if we extend to compound nouns, we also have {moQbID, qubbID je}.</div><div><br></div><div>If I’m missing something, I’m wide open to ejecting my ignorance and filling my mind with clarity on the matter.</div><br><div>
<meta charset="UTF-8"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>pItlh</div><div><br></div><div>charghwI’ ‘utlh</div><div>(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)</div><div><br></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 13, 2023, at 10:35 AM, SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>On 1/13/2023 6:25 AM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">1. Can we use all noun suffixes with pronouns as long as it makes sense, or is there any canonical limitation?<br></blockquote><br>There are no syntactic limitations.<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">2.*SoHvaD paq vInob* and*paq qanob* are both grammatical. Is there any (canonical) difference between them (e.g. one is more formal, the other coloquial etc.)?<br></blockquote><br>I believe there is no known difference between them. One is not more formal than the other.<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">3. Can we use*bID* before and after a noun and, if it is so, what's the difference?<br></blockquote><br>Others have asked this. I think we don't have a canonical answer, but there's a summary of the issue here: http://klingon.wiki/Word/BID<br><br>Basically, ask yourself: is the thing X you're talking about identified as an X or is it something a little different than an X by being smaller or shorter or lesser ("half")? Whatever the thing is is the head noun in the noun-noun construction (the last noun).<br><br>-- <br>SuStel<br>http://trimboli.name<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<br>http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>