We have the noun {moch} which means "(the) superior". I wonder, whether we could use it in noun-noun constructions as {moch Qelpu'}/{moch maqleghpu'}, to say things like "the superior doctors"/"the superior priests", i.e. the doctors/priests who are of higher rank. The problem is, that reading {moch Qelpu'}, I understand {the doctors of the superior}, whatever the @!#! this means.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 3/18/2020 10:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
We have the noun {moch} which means "(the) superior".
I wonder, whether we could use it in noun-noun constructions as {moch Qelpu'}/{moch maqleghpu'}, to say things like "the superior doctors"/"the superior priests", i.e. the doctors/priests who are of higher rank.
The problem is, that reading {moch Qelpu'}, I understand {the doctors of the superior}, whatever the @!#! this means..
Don't confuse the translation /Y of the X/ with a more genitive meaning where Y is narrowed to the sense of X. *moch Qel. *It's a doctor. What sort of doctor? A higher-rank doctor. I wouldn't expect *moch* to participate much in noun-noun constructions like this. It would typically stand alone or be the head noun. *ja'chuq Qel mochDaj je*/The doctor and his/her superior confer./ *lagh ra' Sogh mochDaj*/The ensign is ordered by his lieutenant superior./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:56 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/18/2020 10:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
We have the noun {moch} which means "(the) superior".
I wonder, whether we could use it in noun-noun constructions as {moch Qelpu'}/{moch maqleghpu'}, to say things like "the superior doctors"/"the superior priests", i.e. the doctors/priests who are of higher rank.
The problem is, that reading {moch Qelpu'}, I understand {the doctors of the superior}, whatever the @!#! this means..
Don't confuse the translation *Y of the X* with a more genitive meaning where Y is narrowed to the sense of X.
*moch Qel. *It's a doctor. What sort of doctor? A higher-rank doctor.
I wouldn't expect *moch* to participate much in noun-noun constructions like this. It would typically stand alone or be the head noun. *ja'chuq Qel mochDaj je** The doctor and his/her superior confer.* *lagh ra' Sogh mochDaj** The ensign is ordered by his lieutenant superior.*
I'd probably interpret *moch Qel* as a possessive phrase: "the superior's (or superiors') doctor". *mayqel*: If you're trying to express the notion of "superior", there's the verb *nIv* "be superior". *Qelpu' nIv* "superior doctors", *maqleghpu' nIv *"superior priests"
On 3/18/2020 11:09 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:56 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 3/18/2020 10:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
We have the noun {moch} which means "(the) superior".
I wonder, whether we could use it in noun-noun constructions as {moch Qelpu'}/{moch maqleghpu'}, to say things like "the superior doctors"/"the superior priests", i.e. the doctors/priests who are of higher rank.
The problem is, that reading {moch Qelpu'}, I understand {the doctors of the superior}, whatever the @!#! this means..
Don't confuse the translation /Y of the X/ with a more genitive meaning where Y is narrowed to the sense of X.
*moch Qel. *It's a doctor. What sort of doctor? A higher-rank doctor.
I wouldn't expect *moch* to participate much in noun-noun constructions like this. It would typically stand alone or be the head noun. *ja'chuq Qel mochDaj je*/The doctor and his/her superior confer./ *lagh ra' Sogh mochDaj*/The ensign is ordered by his lieutenant superior./
I'd probably interpret *moch Qel* as a possessive phrase: "the superior's (or superiors') doctor".
Sure. But the question is what does it mean as a non-possessive noun-noun construction.
*mayqel*: If you're trying to express the notion of "superior", there's the verb *nIv* "be superior". *Qelpu' nIv* "superior doctors", *maqleghpu' nIv *"superior priests"
He's not looking for *nIv;* he's trying to figure out what *moch X* would mean if not a possessive construction. Remember how mayqel does things: he's not searching for a way to say something; he puts together some words and asks what they would mean. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 18.03.2020 um 18:12 schrieb SuStel:
Remember how mayqel does things: he's not searching for a way to say something; he puts together some words and asks what they would mean.
Yes, but sometimes he does that while misunderstanding the meaning of a word, assuming it means something else. It sounds to me as if he understands {moch} in the sense of "superior" like if you say "Spiderman" is a superior, meaning a person somehow "better" or "stronger". I think {moch} is "superior" in the sense of "next-rank commander". -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/Moch
On 3/18/2020 1:38 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 18.03.2020 um 18:12 schrieb SuStel:
Remember how mayqel does things: he's not searching for a way to say something; he puts together some words and asks what they would mean.
Yes, but sometimes he does that while misunderstanding the meaning of a word, assuming it means something else.
It sounds to me as if he understands {moch} in the sense of "superior" like if you say "Spiderman" is a superior, meaning a person somehow "better" or "stronger".
I think {moch} is "superior" in the sense of "next-rank commander".
I did not think he meant /superior/ as in /better, stronger,/ and I answered his message with the understanding that he meant someone of higher rank. He used the phrase /higher rank/ in his original message, and I used it in my original reply. He has now posted a reply in which he confirms that he was not looking for the meaning of /better/ or /stronger/. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
lieven:
To say "superior priests" use the adjective {nIv} "be superior". nIqolay Q: mayqel: If you're trying to express the notion of "superior", there's the verb nIv "be superior". Qelpu' nIv "superior doctors", maqleghpu' nIv "superior priests"
I've thought about using the verb {nIv}, but there's the problem of the following Ca'Non sentence: {Dujeychugh jagh nIv yItuHQo'} there is nothing shameful in falling before a superior enemy The way I understand the "superior" in this example, it isn't "greater rank", but rather "greater skill/more powerful/better". But my goal isn't to translate the concept of "superior" as in "greater skill"; my problem is how to translate "superior" as in "of higher rank". ~ mayqel qunen'oS
Am 18.03.2020 um 18:50 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
But my goal isn't to translate the concept of "superior" as in "greater skill"; my problem is how to translate "superior" as in "of higher rank".
Thanks for this clarification. In this case, I think that {moch Qel} does not work that way. It seems like a parallel to {veSDuj} "warship" or "ship of war" but it feels odd, because in {veSDuj} the word {veS} somehow includes the purpose of {Duj}, but the way you intend this, a {moch Qel} is not a Qel serving a moch. I would not surprised if Maltz reveals that {moch} can be used as an adjective, and {Qel moch} would mean "higher rank doctor". Until we know for sure, I would prefer to avoid that construction. The general question here is, whether a the first noun in a N-N-construction can be used to modify the second noun. What is a {ra'wI' Qel}? A {SuvwI' Qel}? ... I think this leads back to my question of a few weeks ago, where I suggested if there is some kind of negative appostion, as seen in {QaDmoHwI' DIr}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Apposition
lieven:
In this case, I think that {moch Qel} does not work that way. It seems like a parallel to {veSDuj} "warship" or "ship of war" but it feels odd, because in {veSDuj} the word {veS} somehow includes the purpose of {Duj}, but the way you intend this, a {moch Qel} is not a Qel serving a moch.
Interesting opinion. On the other hand though, we have the {baS 'In} for "metal drum, bell", where the {baS} doesn't include the purpose of {'In}, since the purpose of the drum isn't to be metal. The only difference that I see between the {moch Qel} and {baS 'in}, is that reading the {baS 'In} as "drum of metal" makes sense without altering the intended meaning, while reading the {moch Qel} as "doctor of the superior", produces quite a different meaning than "superior (in hierarchy) doctor". Anyway, I thought of something else.. Perhaps if we reversed the order of the noun-noun construction could do the trick.. Suppose I wrote {maqlegh moch}; this construction could be read in either one of the following two ways: 1. "the priestess superior"; there is a superior.. what kind of superior ? a priestess superior, i.e. perhaps something like a high priestess. 2. "the superior of the priestess"; and here's the interesting part.. Since the {moch} describes someone superior within a hierarchy, then it stands to reason, that the "superior of the priestess" will be a priestess too. So, given the right context, we could have again the meaning of a "high priestess". Perhaps this would be the way to go.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 3/18/2020 2:38 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
The general question here is, whether a the first noun in a N-N-construction can be used to modify the second noun.
Yes. Absolutely. The noun-noun construction represents a genitive relationship between two nouns, of which possessive is only a subset. In general, /genitive /means being associated in some way. It's a very broad concept with many facets. We have lots of examples of non-possessive noun-noun constructions in Klingon. mayqel cited *baS 'In*/bell,/ which cannot be interpreted as /drum which is possessed by metal./ We have your own citation of *QaDmoHwI' DIr*/towel,/ which is not a skin possessed by a drier. We have *vaj toDuj*/warrior courage/ from KGT, which one might try to interpret as /courage possessed by a warrior,/ except the word *vaj* refers to warriorhood, not a particular warrior, so *vaj toDuj* refers to the kind of courage associated with warriorhood, rather than courage actually possessed by warriorhood. We have *nISwI' HIch*/disruptor pistol,/ which is not a pistol possessed by a disruptor but a pistol of the disruptor variety. We have *'Iw HIq*/bloodwine,/ which is telling us a kind of alcohol, not that the blood possesses the wine. We have *may' qoch*/battle partner,/ which does not mean that the battle possesses the partner. And so on and on and on. While Okrand may not use the word "genitive" in /The Klingon Dictionary,/ the noun-noun construction is nevertheless Klingon's genitive construction.
What is a {ra'wI' Qel}? A {SuvwI' Qel}? ... I think this leads back to my question of a few weeks ago, where I suggested if there is some kind of negative appostion, as seen in {QaDmoHwI' DIr}.
I have no idea what "negative apposition" is supposed to mean, but *QaDmoHwI' DIr* is an example of a genitive construction. If we assume that *ra'wI' Qel* isn't to be interpreted as /the commander's doctor,/ then it means /commander-doctor,/ that is, a doctor who commands, a doctor who is a commander. Likewise, if we assume that *SuvwI' Qel* doesn't refer to a warrior's doctor, then it means /warrior-doctor,/ a doctor who doubles as a warrior. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 19.03.2020 um 14:26 schrieb SuStel:
Yes. Absolutely. The noun-noun construction represents a genitive relationship between two nouns, of which possessive is only a subset. In general, /genitive /means being associated in some way. [...] *QaDmoHwI' DIr* is an example of a genitive construction.
So based on all these examples, {moch Qel} *could* mean "higher-rank-doctor", but maybe not. So it leads back to the next question if that always works, or if it's only acceptable if Maltz says so, or if there is a pattern. It seems to work with all materials, and I guess all of the other examples can also be expanded. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/NounNounConstruction
On 3/19/2020 10:27 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
So based on all these examples, {moch Qel} *could* mean "higher-rank-doctor", but maybe not.
So it leads back to the next question if that always works, or if it's only acceptable if Maltz says so, or if there is a pattern. It seems to work with all materials, and I guess all of the other examples can also be expanded.
The genitive is ubiquitous throughout all of Klingon. The pattern is quite clear. I only gave a handful of examples; there are tons more. I can't see any serious argument being made that the genitive noun-noun construction is an insufficiently documented grammatical feature of the language to employ it in daily use. That's not to say there can't be exceptions. For instance, Klingon from the Sakrej region do not use the noun-noun construction with area-nouns and pronouns as other Klingons do. Where most Klingons say *jIH 'em* for /area behind me,/ Sakrej Klingons say *'emwIj.***But these are exceptions that prove the rule. The fact that the Sakrej usage is an exception means it's an exception to the general rule of the noun-noun construction. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 18.03.2020 um 15:42 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
We have the noun {moch} which means "(the) superior". [...] The problem is, that reading {moch Qelpu'}, I understand {the doctors of the superior}, whatever the @!#! this means..
Well, the {moch Qel} is the "doctor of the superior". I understand the word {moch} "superior" in the sense of that person is my superior, is my boss, is the guy who tells me what to do at the job. So it's not somebody who "IS superior". In bigger companies, there may be differnt levels of superiors, and not every superior is the boss of the company, but might be the boss of the department. To say "superior priests" use the adjective {nIv} "be superior". -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/Moch
participants (4)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel