Hello - has it anywhere ever been explained, how words like {baS 'In} work grammtically ? Is it a classic noun-noun-construction as in chapter 3.4 of TKD? If so, what would be a literal translation, I mean more literal than "metal bell" - would you read it as "a bell made of metal"? It is a genitive contruction? It can't be the "bell of the metal", can it? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/AliceInWonderland
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 8:56 AM Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
Hello - has it anywhere ever been explained, how words like {baS 'In} work grammtically ? Is it a classic noun-noun-construction as in chapter 3.4 of TKD? If so, what would be a literal translation, I mean more literal than "metal bell" - would you read it as "a bell made of metal"? It is a genitive contruction? It can't be the "bell of the metal", can it?
It seems like a fairly straightforward case of a noun-noun construction, with the first noun here {baS} "metal" being an attributive noun modifying the second noun {'In} "percussion instrument". What could be more literal than "metal bell" (assuming {'In} is translated as "bell" rather than the more general "percussion instrument")? A "bell of metal" would also be an acceptable translation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct For the analog in German: https://learngerman.dw.com/en/attributive-genitives/l-60814008/gr-61076479 -- De'vID
Am 28.01.2024 um 10:46 schrieb De'vID via tlhIngan-Hol:
It seems like a fairly straightforward case of a noun-noun construction, with the first noun here {baS} "metal" being an attributive noun modifying the second noun {'In} "percussion instrument".
Thanks, that was what I had in mind, a little more scientific description.
What could be more literal than "metal bell" (assuming {'In} is translated as "bell" rather than the more general "percussion instrument")? A "bell of metal" would also be an acceptable translation.
I am not sure how to explain that in English or Klingon grammar terms, but I have a feeling that there are two kinds of noun noun construction, even thoug they are both declared a genitive: One is like a way to decribe the sort of a thing, the other is a possessive contstruction. See, {baS 'In} is a bell made of metal. When I talk about {HoD 'In} it's the bell of the captain. A less ambiguous example might be this: {HoD qab vIlegh} "I see the captain's face" Here, the face belongs to the captain. That's why the English translation uses the ['s]. Theoretically, one could argue you can omit that. Then, the meaning would change to "a captain face" - parallel to a "pokerface". In that case, one does not use the ['s] when translating to Klingon. I do not intend to superimpose something into Klingon grammar what isn't intended to be there. Maybe Klingon grammarians do not see the difference. But I believe that semantically, there is a difference. compare I want to buy the captain's boots. [those he's wearing] vs. I want to buy some captain boots. [a type of boots] In some cases like above it's ambiguous in Klingon (HoD DaS), but sometimes it's clear that a {baS 'In} is definitely not an {'In} that is owned by the {baS}. Instead, it's an {'In} /made of/ {baS}. I hope anyone understands my point. I am not a linguist. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com https://klingon.wiki/En/NounNounConstruction
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 7:47 AM Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
I am not sure how to explain that in English or Klingon grammar terms, but I have a feeling that there are two kinds of noun noun construction, even thoug they are both declared a genitive: One is like a way to decribe the sort of a thing, the other is a possessive contstruction.
The genitive construction can be used to denote (among other things) attributive or possessive relationships. I think this may be confusing to German speakers because German uses the attributive genitive to indicate possession, and uses compounding (Komposita) to indicate attribution when a noun functions as an adjective. Thus, one wouldn't normally say "die Glocke des Eisens" but "die Eisenglocke". But in Klingon, N1-N2 is "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1" and can indicate both attribution and possession. See, {baS 'In} is a bell made of metal. When I talk about {HoD 'In} it's
the bell of the captain. A less ambiguous example might be this:
{HoD qab vIlegh} "I see the captain's face"
Here, the face belongs to the captain. That's why the English translation uses the ['s].
Theoretically, one could argue you can omit that. Then, the meaning would change to "a captain face" - parallel to a "pokerface". In that case, one does not use the ['s] when translating to Klingon.
I do not intend to superimpose something into Klingon grammar what isn't intended to be there. Maybe Klingon grammarians do not see the difference. But I believe that semantically, there is a difference.
compare I want to buy the captain's boots. [those he's wearing] vs. I want to buy some captain boots. [a type of boots]
In some cases like above it's ambiguous in Klingon (HoD DaS), but sometimes it's clear that a {baS 'In} is definitely not an {'In} that is owned by the {baS}. Instead, it's an {'In} /made of/ {baS}.
I hope anyone understands my point. I am not a linguist.
This type of ambiguity exists in English also. For example, the {Daqtagh} is a "warrior's knife". In context, we know it means "a knife meant to be used or carried by a warrior" (attribution with "warrior" functioning as an adjective, perhaps "das Kriegermesser" in German; indeed, I see that is the actual German translation you provided for {boQwI'}). But "a warrior's knife" could also mean "a knife belonging to a particular warrior" (possession, "das Messer des Kriegers"). As in English, context usually disambiguates. If I'm talking about a specific captain and I refer to "the captain's boots" ("die Stiefel des Kapitäns"), you know I'm talking about boots belonging to a specific person. If I'm in a boot distribution centre for the Klingon Defense Force and they give out different kinds of boots to different ranks, and I ask for "the captain['s] boots" (perhaps "Kapitänsstiefel"), you know I'm talking about a type of boot. Here, Klingon and English are similarly ambiguous, whereas German distinguishes the two cases, and I think that's what you're getting at. -- De'vID
Thanks De'vID for explaining this, you understand what I'm talking about. With your permission, I'll add these wordings (with small changes) to the Klingon wiki, because it might be interesting for other speakers as well. Lieven. Am 29.01.2024 um 08:48 schrieb De'vID via tlhIngan-Hol:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 7:47 AM Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org>> wrote:
I am not sure how to explain that in English or Klingon grammar terms, but I have a feeling that there are two kinds of noun noun construction, even thoug they are both declared a genitive: One is like a way to decribe the sort of a thing, the other is a possessive contstruction.
The genitive construction can be used to denote (among other things) attributive or possessive relationships.
I think this may be confusing to German speakers because German uses the attributive genitive to indicate possession, and uses compounding (Komposita) to indicate attribution when a noun functions as an adjective. Thus, one wouldn't normally say "die Glocke des Eisens" but "die Eisenglocke". But in Klingon, N1-N2 is "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1" and can indicate both attribution and possession.
See, {baS 'In} is a bell made of metal. When I talk about {HoD 'In} it's the bell of the captain. A less ambiguous example might be this:
{HoD qab vIlegh} "I see the captain's face"
Here, the face belongs to the captain. That's why the English translation uses the ['s].
Theoretically, one could argue you can omit that. Then, the meaning would change to "a captain face" - parallel to a "pokerface". In that case, one does not use the ['s] when translating to Klingon.
I do not intend to superimpose something into Klingon grammar what isn't intended to be there. Maybe Klingon grammarians do not see the difference. But I believe that semantically, there is a difference.
compare I want to buy the captain's boots. [those he's wearing] vs. I want to buy some captain boots. [a type of boots]
In some cases like above it's ambiguous in Klingon (HoD DaS), but sometimes it's clear that a {baS 'In} is definitely not an {'In} that is owned by the {baS}. Instead, it's an {'In} /made of/ {baS}.
I hope anyone understands my point. I am not a linguist.
This type of ambiguity exists in English also. For example, the {Daqtagh} is a "warrior's knife". In context, we know it means "a knife meant to be used or carried by a warrior" (attribution with "warrior" functioning as an adjective, perhaps "das Kriegermesser" in German; indeed, I see that is the actual German translation you provided for {boQwI'}). But "a warrior's knife" could also mean "a knife belonging to a particular warrior" (possession, "das Messer des Kriegers").
As in English, context usually disambiguates. If I'm talking about a specific captain and I refer to "the captain's boots" ("die Stiefel des Kapitäns"), you know I'm talking about boots belonging to a specific person. If I'm in a boot distribution centre for the Klingon Defense Force and they give out different kinds of boots to different ranks, and I ask for "the captain['s] boots" (perhaps "Kapitänsstiefel"), you know I'm talking about a type of boot. Here, Klingon and English are similarly ambiguous, whereas German distinguishes the two cases, and I think that's what you're getting at.
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/AliceInWonderland
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 1:47 AM Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
I am not sure how to explain that in English or Klingon grammar terms, but I have a feeling that there are two kinds of noun noun construction, even thoug they are both declared a genitive: One is like a way to decribe the sort of a thing, the other is a possessive contstruction.
Someone on the mailing list (I think SuStel) once phrased the broad meaning of the N1 N2 construction (and the genitive in general) as "the type of N2 that has something to do with N1". Often this relationship is one of possession, but it could also be composition (*baS 'In* "a bell made of metal"), origin (*burgh quD* "quD from a stomach"), purpose (*ghItlh raS* "table for manuscripts, i.e. desk"), some kind of association or combination (*ghav 'uSqan* "iron that is combined with carbon, i.e. steel"), and so on.
Careful about adding an article to the English translation. Klingon doesn’t have articles. In English, there is a big difference between “bell of metal” and “bell of the metal”. The former sounds natural and fits the Klingon meaning far better. The latter places more significance on the metal than the bell. Bell of metal. The bell of metal. Bell of the metal. The bell of the metal. The first means a metal bell. The second suggests a specific metal bell. The third suggest any bell, so long as it’s made of the specific metal that context has apparently explained. Stainless steel? Brass? Bronze? The forth speaks of some specific bell made of the specific metal. These shades of meaning would require a bit more verbal effort to differentiate, if you wanted to speak of something other than a generic metal bell, which, I guess differentiates it from a glass or other ceramic bell. Wood doesn’t ring all that effectively. Stone bells are challenging to manufacture. Mud bells aren’t very durable. Cloth bells are not very loud. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jan 28, 2024, at 2:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
Hello - has it anywhere ever been explained, how words like {baS 'In} work grammtically ? Is it a classic noun-noun-construction as in chapter 3.4 of TKD? If so, what would be a literal translation, I mean more literal than "metal bell" - would you read it as "a bell made of metal"? It is a genitive contruction? It can't be the "bell of the metal", can it?
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/AliceInWonderland _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
nIqolay Q -
Will Martin