lieven:
TKD, chapter 3.4 The noun-noun-construction says [..]
While I was wondering about the {vaD}ed nouns this rule came to mind, but I hoped there was a way to "work around it". But it was too good to be true.. SapIr:
I suspect that the Klingon for "security organization" would probably look just like the English: {Hung 'obe'}. You wouldn't need a {vaD}.
I agree. I just used the {HungvaD 'obe'}, as an example of a {vaD}ed noun. SapIr:
Another question worth asking, though, is whether a {'obe'} can see something in Klingon
This is a good question. Perhaps an {'obe'} can't actually see, and this possibility came to mind while I was writing the example. But I used it anyway, because at the moment it was the only example that came to mind. qunnoH On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:19 PM, kechpaja <kechpaja@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:58:37AM +0100, Lieven wrote:
Am 01.11.2016 um 09:27 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
The answer will probably be no, but what the ghe'tor I'll ask anyway.
bIghelbe'chugh vaj not bISovchoH.
Can we say:
HeSwI' leghpu' HungvaD 'obe' the organization for security saw the prisoner ?
Clearly not. TKD, chapter 3.4 The noun-noun-construction says "When the noun-noun-construction is used, only the second noun can take syntactic suffixes (Type 5)".
That is: {HungvaD 'obe'} NO {Hung 'obe'vaD} YES
I suspect that the Klingon for "security organization" would probably look just like the English: {Hung 'obe'}. You wouldn't need a {vaD}.
Another question worth asking, though, is whether a {'obe'} can see something in Klingon. In English we use metonymy of that sort all the time, but a Klingon might be confused by why you didn't say {Hung yaS} or something like that instead.
- SapIr _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org