expressing baby animals
I remember having talked about this in the past without reaching a conclusion. Anyways, I just decided that until we get a Ca'Non way to express this (yeah right, as if that's ever gonna happen..) I'll be using {Ha'DIbaH-ghu} like this: {vIghro'-ghu} for "kitten" {ngavyaw'-ghu} for "puppy" {bo'Degh-ghu} for whatever the hell you call baby birds in english. Of course one could ask "but why don't say the opposite? i.e. {ghu-vIghro'}?". I thought of this possibility, and to be honest I can't feel much of a difference between a "cat baby" and a "baby cat", but perhaps being influenced from the Ca'Non {DI'raq loD}/{DI'raq be'}, which perhaps have nothing to do with the matter at hand, I prefer the {vIghro'-ghu} more. Let alone that the {vIghro'-ghu} is closer to the "baby of the cat" meaning. True, I could write just {vIghro' ghu} but I like the dash variety better. Of course, in a couple of months, I may have forgotten what I wrote today and write {ghu-vIghro'}. Or {vIghro' ghu}. Go figure. And yes, I know that perhaps klingon doesn't do dashes between words, but as you well know I don't give a crap. I couldn't care less. No, seriously, if I cared any less I could die. Just wanted to let you know. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
Regarding hyphens:In English, the hyphen used this way represents a genitive relationship. In Klingon, the genitive relationship is automatic in the noun-noun construction, so unnecessary. I've got no objection if you want to punctuate this way, but it is redundant. And you'll probably want to justify why you hyphenate vIghro'-ghu but not tlhIngan-Hol, and so on.Hyphenation in this manner makes sense as a way to distinguish genitive constructions from other nouns placed side by side. But I don't know if you would want to do it all the time. -------- Original message --------From: mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Date: 11/28/21 9:25 AM (GMT-05:00) To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] expressing baby animals I remember having talked about this in the past without reaching a conclusion.Anyways, I just decided that until we get a Ca'Non way to express this (yeah right, as if that's ever gonna happen..) I'll be using {Ha'DIbaH-ghu} like this:{vIghro'-ghu} for "kitten"{ngavyaw'-ghu} for "puppy"{bo'Degh-ghu} for whatever the hell you call baby birds in english.Of course one could ask "but why don't say the opposite? i.e. {ghu-vIghro'}?".I thought of this possibility, and to be honest I can't feel much of a difference between a "cat baby" and a "baby cat", but perhaps being influenced from the Ca'Non {DI'raq loD}/{DI'raq be'}, which perhaps have nothing to do with the matter at hand, I prefer the {vIghro'-ghu} more. Let alone that the {vIghro'-ghu} is closer to the "baby of the cat" meaning. True, I could write just {vIghro' ghu} but I like the dash variety better.Of course, in a couple of months, I may have forgotten what I wrote today and write {ghu-vIghro'}. Or {vIghro' ghu}. Go figure.And yes, I know that perhaps klingon doesn't do dashes between words, but as you well know I don't give a crap. I couldn't care less. No, seriously, if I cared any less I could die.Just wanted to let you know.--Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
Regarding hyphens:In English, the hyphen used this way represents a genitive relationship. In Klingon, the genitive relationship is automatic in the noun-noun construction, so unnecessary. I've got no objection if you want to punctuate this way, but it is redundant. And you'll probably want to justify why you hyphenate vIghro'-ghu but not tlhIngan-Hol, and so on.Hyphenation in this manner makes sense as a way to distinguish genitive constructions from other nouns placed side by side. But I don't know if you would want to do it all the time. -------- Original message --------From: mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Date: 11/28/21 9:25 AM (GMT-05:00) To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] expressing baby animals I remember having talked about this in the past without reaching a conclusion.Anyways, I just decided that until we get a Ca'Non way to express this (yeah right, as if that's ever gonna happen..) I'll be using {Ha'DIbaH-ghu} like this:{vIghro'-ghu} for "kitten"{ngavyaw'-ghu} for "puppy"{bo'Degh-ghu} for whatever the hell you call baby birds in english.Of course one could ask "but why don't say the opposite? i.e. {ghu-vIghro'}?".I thought of this possibility, and to be honest I can't feel much of a difference between a "cat baby" and a "baby cat", but perhaps being influenced from the Ca'Non {DI'raq loD}/{DI'raq be'}, which perhaps have nothing to do with the matter at hand, I prefer the {vIghro'-ghu} more. Let alone that the {vIghro'-ghu} is closer to the "baby of the cat" meaning. True, I could write just {vIghro' ghu} but I like the dash variety better.Of course, in a couple of months, I may have forgotten what I wrote today and write {ghu-vIghro'}. Or {vIghro' ghu}. Go figure.And yes, I know that perhaps klingon doesn't do dashes between words, but as you well know I don't give a crap. I couldn't care less. No, seriously, if I cared any less I could die.Just wanted to let you know.--Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
Am 28.11.2021 um 15:24 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Anyways, I just decided that until we get a Ca'Non way to express this (yeah right, as if that's ever gonna happen..) I'll be using {Ha'DIbaH-ghu} like this [...]
For my translation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, I talked to Marc Okrand exactly on this. He agreed that {targh ghu} is okay for "Targ puppy" or "baby targ". This also confirmed that an animal baby can use the word {ghu}. Okrand added: "Right. Or {targh Qup} for a somewhat older targ." So you may consider this as "canon", and it answers your question. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/AliceInWonderland
lieven:
For my translation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, I talked to Marc Okrand exactly on this. He agreed that {targh ghu} is okay for "Targ puppy" or "baby targ". This also confirmed that an animal baby can use the word {ghu}. Okrand added: "Right. Or {targh Qup} for a somewhat older targ." So you may consider this as "canon", and it answers your question.
Cool! So now we can talk as much as we want about soft, cute, and silly baby animals, and in Ca'Non way too! Thanks for sharing. But before moving on there's something I'd like to make certain. jIH:
{vIghro'-ghu} SuStel: In English, the hyphen used this way represents a genitive relationship SuStel: Oh, hunter-killer isn't genitive. That's a different kind of relationship.
Initially, I couldn't understand when a noun-noun construction is to be interpreted as a genitive relationship, and when as something else. So I thought of the following: When a noun-noun construction makes sense if one read it as "noun 2 of noun 1" then it represents a genitive relationship, but when reading it as "noun 2 of noun 1" doesn't make sense then it's something else. So, the {vIghro' ghu} is genitive since it makes sense for it to be read as "baby of a cat", but the "hunter-killer" is something else since it makes no sense understanding it as "killer of the hunter". Would you agree with this approach? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 11/29/2021 8:46 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
{vIghro'-ghu} SuStel: In English, the hyphen used this way represents a genitive relationship SuStel: Oh, hunter-killer isn't genitive. That's a different kind of relationship. Initially, I couldn't understand when a noun-noun construction is to be interpreted as a genitive relationship, and when as something else. So I thought of the following:
When a noun-noun construction makes sense if one read it as "noun 2 of noun 1" then it represents a genitive relationship, but when reading it as "noun 2 of noun 1" doesn't make sense then it's something else.
So, the {vIghro' ghu} is genitive since it makes sense for it to be read as "baby of a cat", but the "hunter-killer" is something else since it makes no sense understanding it as "killer of the hunter".
Would you agree with this approach?
No. The Klingon noun-noun construction is always genitive. When one noun modifies the meaning of another noun, that's genitive. That's true whether you translate it "noun 2 of noun 1" or "noun 1's noun 2" or "noun 2 made of noun 1." What's important is that noun 1 is modifying the meaning of noun 2. That's what makes it a genitive relationship. The phrase /hunter-killer/ does not contain a genitive. /Hunter/ does not modify /killer,/ and /killer/ does not modify /hunter./ The entire phrase /hunter-killer/ is used genitively to modify the word /probe,/ but that's not important here. The phrase could also have been written /hunter/killer;/ the hyphen is not important to the meaning here. It's just a shortcut to saying /and./ The probe hunts and the probe kills. It does both these things, so we're going to stick the two words together a bit sloppily and call it a hunter-killer probe. That's all this means. *vIghro' ghu'* is a noun-noun construction, which means they're in a genitive relationship. It's a *ghu.* What kind of *ghu?* A *vIghro'* kind of *ghu.* It's a *Hol.* What kind of *Hol?* A *tlhIngan* kind of *Hol.* It's a *pegh.* What kind of *pegh?* A *nuH* kind of *pegh.* And so on. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel