I would tend to read it as “Leader, and Chancellor of the Klingon empire,” but reading your English translation, my natural inclination is to think “Chancellor … and Leader-of-the-Klingon-Empire.” I have to think it through to come up with “Leader-and-Chancellor of the Klingon Empire.” That interpretation comes later.
In the interest of clarity, I modestly suggest that one might seek to consider alternative constructions when the whim strikes to pile more than two nouns next to each other. It’s not banned. There are no rules against it. It’s just that the grammar doesn’t offer much in the way of clarity to support a string of nouns that may be linked by conjunction and/or genitive/possessive relationships.
But if you cherish ambiguity, go for it with gusto. Amuse yourself and others as you see fit. It is completely within your rights to do so.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
> On May 20, 2019, at 07:57, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What I'm wondering though is this: Assume we have a N-N-N-N (quadruple
> noun construction); are *all* combinations possible ? i.e. (N-N)-N-N,
> N-(N-N)-N, N-N-(N-N), (N-N-N)-N, N-(N-N-N) ?
I don’t see why not. Context might make exclude some interpretations and common sense might make some more unlikely, but all of those should be possible, as well as (N-N)-(N-N).
As an example, consider {tlhIngan wo' Qang DevwI' je}. Sure, you *could* read this as "a Klingon, an empire, a Chancellor, and a leader", but I bet no one has any trouble parsing this as "Chancellor and Leader of the Klingon Empire".
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.orghttp://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org