difference between -meH and -wI' in purpose-clause compound nouns
Hi, first of all, how would you linguistically call that what I am talking about? I have noticed that some words are translated like {pe'meH taj} "cutting knife", while others use -wI': {toSwI' qal'aq} "jungle gym". And then, sometimes I wondered, why -wI' and not -meH? Of course, all phrases make sense in both ways, but is there a difference? Why is it not {toSmeH qal'aq} "structure for climbing"? Why say {chevwI' tlhoy'} and not {chevmeH tlhoy'} for "territiorial wall"? "suntan lotion" is translated as {DIr QanwI' taS} - why not {DIr QanmeH taS}? What do you think about that? Next, I think there is also a difference between combinations where the meH-ed verb directly influences the noun (pe'meH taj means that the knife is for cutting) while other situations are just real noun-noun combinations (as in {nISwI' DaH} which is a "array of disruptors" and not a "array to disrupt"). I'm just lacking the right terms to say what I think, so maybe you can clarify. BTW, I started a page in the Klingon language wiki with some examples. The page still has a strange name though: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CompoundNounsWithAVerb -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
On 6/1/2017 4:45 AM, Lieven wrote:
first of all, how would you linguistically call that what I am talking about?
In your subject, you call these things "purpose-clause compound nouns." Strictly speaking, none of these are compound nouns, which in TKD are individual words consisting of multiple nouns. All of your examples may be described as noun phrases, but you can't get more specific when describing all of them. They break down into purpose clauses and genitive phrases.
I have noticed that some words are translated like {pe'meH taj} "cutting knife", while others use -wI': {toSwI' qal'aq} "jungle gym".
And then, sometimes I wondered, why -wI' and not -meH?
Of course, all phrases make sense in both ways, but is there a difference? Why is it not {toSmeH qal'aq} "structure for climbing"? Why say {chevwI' tlhoy'} and not {chevmeH tlhoy'} for "territiorial wall"? "suntan lotion" is translated as {DIr QanwI' taS} - why not {DIr QanmeH taS}?
What do you think about that?
I think it's arbitrary, and you just have to learn which way it's said. I also think you wouldn't be particularly wrong if you said *chevmeH tlhoy'* instead of *chevwI' tlhoy',* for example. It would be like the difference between /border wall/ and /wall of the border:/ one is said and the other isn't, but the other is still perfectly understandable.
Next, I think there is also a difference between combinations where the meH-ed verb directly influences the noun (pe'meH taj means that the knife is for cutting) while other situations are just real noun-noun combinations (as in {nISwI' DaH} which is a "array of disruptors" and not a "array to disrupt").
I'm just lacking the right terms to say what I think, so maybe you can clarify.
Genitive is a broad concept, and Klingon noun-nouns seem to embrace that breadth. You seem to be sensing sub-types of genitive. Here's a page that breaks down various types that appear in Latin: <http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/genitive.html>. Klingon grammar treats them all the same. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 01.06.2017 um 18:02 schrieb SuStel:
In your subject, you call these things "purpose-clause compound nouns." Strictly speaking, none of these are compound nouns, which in TKD are individual words consisting of multiple nouns. All of your examples may be described as noun phrases, but you can't get more specific when describing all of them. They break down into purpose clauses and genitive phrases.
Thanks for clarifying.
I also think you wouldn't be particularly wrong if you said *chevmeH tlhoy'* instead of *chevwI' tlhoy',* for example. It would be like the difference between /border wall/ and /wall of the border:/ one is said and the other isn't, but the other is still perfectly understandable.
But on the other hand, {pe'wI' taj} sounds strange, doesn't it? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I also think you wouldn't be particularly wrong if you said *chevmeH
tlhoy'* instead of *chevwI' tlhoy',* for example. It would be like the difference between /border wall/ and /wall of the border:/ one is said and the other isn't, but the other is still perfectly understandable.
I think it's literally the difference between "dividing wall" and "divider wall". The first one defines the wall by its purpose. The second one says what kind of wall it is. They both work to describe or name the same thing.
But on the other hand, {pe'wI' taj} sounds strange, doesn't it?
Similarly, a "cutter knife" sounds less normal to me than a "cutting knife". -- ghunchu'wI'
On 6/1/2017 12:16 PM, Lieven wrote:
I also think you wouldn't be particularly wrong if you said *chevmeH tlhoy'* instead of *chevwI' tlhoy',* for example. It would be like the difference between /border wall/ and /wall of the border:/ one is said and the other isn't, but the other is still perfectly understandable.
But on the other hand, {pe'wI' taj} sounds strange, doesn't it?
Only because I know the phrase *pe'meH taj.* A *pe'wI' taj* is obviously a /cutter's knife, the knife of someone who cuts./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
Alan Anderson -
Lieven -
SuStel