Re: [tlhIngan Hol] [Tlhingan-hol] Liquid Nitrogen
From the BOP Poster we have the N1-N2 noun-noun phrase {rugh bIQSIp} "anti-hydrogen" (lit. "antimatter hydrogen"). How is this grammatically different from *{betgham bIQSIp}?
For those not up on their Treknology: (ST Encyclopedia): Deuterium was also used as one of the reactants in the matter/antimatter reaction system in those ships' warp drive. The deuterium was the matter, and anti-hydrogen served as the antimatter. (TNG "Relics") FYI, {bIQSIp 'ugh} "deuterium isotope" (lit. "heavy hydrogen") also comes from the Poster comes from the BOP Poster. -- Voragh
-----Original Message----- Fiat Knox <fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
So, now we know that betgham means liquid (n). Does that mean we can now use a noun-noun construction and officially call liquid nitrogen *betgham voQSIp?* Ditto for, say, liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen and liquid gold?
I doubt it, since "liquid" in "liquid oxygen" is not a noun but an adjective.
{betgham voQSIp} would seem to me to mean "liquid nitrogen" as in "the nitrogen which is present in this liquid" rather than "nitrogen in liquid form".
"The liquid's nitrogen" or "nitrogen of the liquid" would be other ways of putting it.
A bit like how I interpret {nuH pegh} (the TKD example) not as a weapon secret (one concerning a weapon) but as a particular weapon's secret.
And indeed TKD, says that "N1-N2 (that is, noun #1 followed by noun #2) would be <N2 of the N1.>", so {betgham voQSIp} would be something like "nitrogen of the liquid".
Cheers, Philip
SuStel:
On the other hand, we also have constructions like baS ‘In, which means metal drum, and certainly not metal’s drum. Possession is only one function of the genitive noun-noun construction.
yes indeed, and that's the good thing with noun-noun constructions ; they have many functions. I don't remember who had told me this, but one of the first things I learned in klingon was that N1-N2, could be interpreted as "N2 being described by N1", or more simply "descriptor-thing described". However, I don't remember reading this in the TKD, or explicitly stated as a grammar rule. Well, good thing we didn't consider this as being an illegal use of a noun-noun construction.. We have already invented a lot of ways of grammar interpretation, in order to tie our hands and make our lives difficult. nach velwI' qIj On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
From the BOP Poster we have the N1-N2 noun-noun phrase {rugh bIQSIp} "anti-hydrogen" (lit. "antimatter hydrogen"). How is this grammatically different from *{betgham bIQSIp}?
For those not up on their Treknology:
(ST Encyclopedia): Deuterium was also used as one of the reactants in the matter/antimatter reaction system in those ships' warp drive. The deuterium was the matter, and anti-hydrogen served as the antimatter. (TNG "Relics")
FYI, {bIQSIp 'ugh} "deuterium isotope" (lit. "heavy hydrogen") also comes from the Poster comes from the BOP Poster.
-- Voragh
-----Original Message----- Fiat Knox <fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
So, now we know that betgham means liquid (n). Does that mean we can now use a noun-noun construction and officially call liquid nitrogen *betgham voQSIp?* Ditto for, say, liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen and liquid gold?
I doubt it, since "liquid" in "liquid oxygen" is not a noun but an adjective.
{betgham voQSIp} would seem to me to mean "liquid nitrogen" as in "the nitrogen which is present in this liquid" rather than "nitrogen in liquid form".
"The liquid's nitrogen" or "nitrogen of the liquid" would be other ways of putting it.
A bit like how I interpret {nuH pegh} (the TKD example) not as a weapon secret (one concerning a weapon) but as a particular weapon's secret.
And indeed TKD, says that "N1-N2 (that is, noun #1 followed by noun #2) would be <N2 of the N1.>", so {betgham voQSIp} would be something like "nitrogen of the liquid".
Cheers, Philip
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On the other hand, I just noticed that Voragh notes {rugh bIQSIp} "antihydrogen". Now I'm less certain. But in {rugh bIQSIp}, {bIQSIp} by virtue of its position is clearly qualifying the type of {rugh} - that is, "hydrogen of antimatter": of all the different elements that form {rugh}, the one being talked about is {bIQSIp}. I'm not so sure that I'm happy with considering {voQSIp} to qualify a state or type of {betgham}, rather than that {betgham} is the qualifier or descriptor of the {voQSIp} and so should come second. But cha' DarSeqmeywIj 'oH neH. <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org> QeS 'utlh
On 8/5/2016 10:01 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
On the other hand, I just noticed that Voragh notes {rugh bIQSIp} "antihydrogen".
Now I'm less certain. But in {rugh bIQSIp}, {bIQSIp} by virtue of its position is clearly qualifying the type of {rugh} - that is, "hydrogen of antimatter": of all the different elements that form {rugh}, the one being talked about is {bIQSIp}. I'm not so sure that I'm happy with considering {voQSIp} to qualify a state or type of {betgham}, rather than that {betgham} is the qualifier or descriptor of the {voQSIp} and so should come second. But cha' DarSeqmeywIj 'oH neH.
I think you've got that backward: in *rugh bIQSIp,* *rugh* is qualifying the type of *bIQSIp.* It's hydrogen, of the antimatter kind. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIjatlhpu' jIH:
But in {rugh bIQSIp}, {bIQSIp} by virtue of its position is clearly
qualifying the type of {rugh} - that is, "hydrogen of antimatter":
mujang SuStel, jatlh:
I think you've got that backward: in rugh bIQSIp, rugh is qualifying
the type of bIQSIp. It's hydrogen, of the antimatter kind.
Qualifying in the linguistic sense, yes, you're absolutely right. That said, in a genitive of composition like this, N2 forms a subset of N1: a slice of meat, a page of a novel, grains of quadrotriticale. That's the only sense in which I meant that N2 was qualifying N1 (in the Merriam-Webster, "to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form") - not grammatically, only pragmatically. I should have used "select" or "specify" or something similar, to avoid the technical connotations of "qualify". QeS 'utlh
On 8/5/2016 11:41 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
jIjatlhpu' jIH:
But in {rugh bIQSIp}, {bIQSIp} by virtue of its position is clearly
qualifying the type of {rugh} - that is, "hydrogen of antimatter":
mujang SuStel, jatlh:
I think you've got that backward: in *rugh bIQSIp,* *rugh* is qualifying
the type of *bIQSIp.* It's hydrogen, of the antimatter kind.
Qualifying in the linguistic sense, yes, you're absolutely right.
That said, in a genitive of composition like this, N2 forms a subset of N1: a slice of meat, a page of a novel, grains of quadrotriticale. That's the only sense in which I meant that N2 was qualifying N1 (in the Merriam-Webster, "to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form") - not grammatically, only pragmatically. I should have used "select" or "specify" or something similar, to avoid the technical connotations of "qualify".
That doesn't work in every N-N, though. in *baS 'In,* we're not talking about drums being a subset of all things metal; we're talking about metal drums being a subset of all drums. Yes, it's true for phrases like /meat slice/ and /novel pages,/ but not for others like /Klingon language/ or /home building/ *(juH qach)*. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
Rhona Fenwick -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel