Am 28.01.2024 um 10:46 schrieb De'vID via tlhIngan-Hol:
It seems like a fairly straightforward case of a noun-noun construction, with the first noun here {baS} "metal" being an attributive noun modifying the second noun {'In} "percussion instrument".
Thanks, that was what I had in mind, a little more scientific description.
What could be more literal than "metal bell" (assuming {'In} is translated as "bell" rather than the more general "percussion instrument")? A "bell of metal" would also be an acceptable translation.
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. 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. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com https://klingon.wiki/En/NounNounConstruction