On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 15:15, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
pawpu' poH luSopbogh nov. ghIq wa' vI' vagh DIS luSoppu'.
I've thought of this solution, but the thing I can't understand, is why {bID} is used as the second noun in {paH bID} etc, while at the "half utility deck" its' use is seemingly/apparently weird.
{bID yIH(mey)} "half of the tribbles" {yIH{mey} bID} "the tribbles' halves" {SuD bID yIHmey} "half of the tribbles are green" (there are an equal number of {SuD} and {Doq} tribbles) {SuD yIHmey bID} "the tribbles' halves are green" (each tribble is {SuD} on one side and {Doq} on the other) In a noun-noun construction, the result's type is that of the second noun. Is a {moQbID} a {moQ}? No. Is it a {bID}. Yes, a {bID} of a {moQ}. A {yopwaH bID} is not quite a {yopwaH}. A {paH bID} is not quite a {paH}. (There's something which initially looks like an exception in {DIr bID} which, if it literally referred to half of a skin, is still a skin, but the explanation here is that it's actually a shortened form fo {DIr paH bID}. A {DIr paH} is a {paH}, and a short version of that isn't a {paH} but a {paH bID}, specifically a {DIr paH bID}, which is sometimes shortened to {DIr bID} when the context is clear.) A {bID choQ} is still a {choQ}. A half-deck is, in fact, just half of a deck. Its type is still deck. I would expect {choQ bID} to be something which is functionally not the same as a {choQ}. With {moQ} it's fairly unambiguous that halving it results in something that's not a {moQ}. With {choQ}, assuming you start with a reasonably-sized one, halving it still results in a {choQ} and you're at the other end of the spectrum. Items of clothing are in between and it's ambiguous or debatable which way they could've gone: how short does a "dress" have to be before it becomes a "skirt"? At least for a sufficiently short one, Klingons apparently no longer see it as a dress but as a half-dress (which is not a dress in the way that a hemisphere is not a sphere). -- De'vID