[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

I think there may be some confusion over the term “modify”. Yes, the action of a {tel SeHwI’} does modify the wing, in that it moves the wing around, and that movement can be considered a modification, but when used as a grammatical term “modify” typically means that it describes or identifies. In this case, we might ask, “what kind of controller is this?” And the answer is that it’s a “wing controller”. 

So, the word “wing” describes or identifies the controller. So, in grammatical terms {tel} is modifying {SeHwI’}, and this is a normal noun-noun genitive construction. It’s a “wing’s controller” or a “controller of the wing”.

Similarly, {tel vID’Irmey} would be a normal noun-noun genitive construction. These are “wing’s baffles”, or “baffles of the wing”.

{telDaq wovmoHwI’} is different because of the {-Daq} suffix. If that had been omitted, it could have been a noun-noun construction, meaning “a wing’s lights”, or “lights of the wing”, but by definition, {-Daq} is a suffix that gives a noun a grammatical relationship to a verb independent of any other words between that appended noun and the verb. There is no verb present, so one has to be implied.

You don’t have to decide what the verb is. You simply have to recognize that in terms of Klingon grammar, this noun is not a part of any grammatical construction with words that follow it, until it finds its verb. A noun with {-Daq} doesn’t apply itself to other nouns. It’s a sentence fragment.

We don’t know what the sentence would have been, but we know that the location is the wing, and we know that lights would be either the subject or the object of the same verb that the wing is the location for.

But if we back up to include your other chosen examples, a noun or noun phrase is, by definition in Klingon, a sentence fragment. In your two examples, since there are no Type 5 noun suffixes on either noun, the grammatical function of the noun phrase could only be defined positionally, relative to the verb, which is not revealed. So, these would, by necessity, be subjects or objects of some unstated verb.

Titles and labels do this all the time. “Gone with the Wind” What is gone with the wind? We don’t know. It’s not really a statement. It’s a sentence fragment. Pride and Prejudice. Okay, so what are pride and prejudice doing? We don’t know. It’s a book title. We don’t expect it to make sense as a statement because it isn’t one. It’s a sentence fragment.

A Klingon sentence ALWAYS has a verb. It may or may not have anything else.

There are settings where it is fine to just give a sentence fragment. It’s like clipped Klingon. We don’t expect it to follow all of the normal grammatical rules, but there’s still an underlying, implied grammar for what would have been the complete statement.

Type 5 noun suffixes connect nouns to verbs. That’s all they do. They can’t do anything else, even if we’d like them to. So, a noun with {-Daq} waits for its verb, and in a sentence fragment, it waits forever. Even though we never know what the verb would have been, we know what the function of that noun would have been in relation to that never stated verb.

If I say, “In my car,” and then I don’t say anything else, you know that I’ve said a sentence fragment. You don’t know what the sentence would have been, but you do know something about the context of what the sentence would have been. Maybe I’m providing context in response to a question, or just to draw your attention to the inside of my car. You know more than you would have had I remained silent, but I have not uttered a sentence. I’ve merely given you a sentence fragment.

So, “On the wing, lights.” We do not have a single noun-noun construction forming one noun phrase. We have two noun phrases (if a single noun can be considered a phrase). Each has a separate relationship to the same unstated verb.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Feb 12, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> I kept out of this discussion for a along time, but like to comment something now anyway. Sorry if I repeat things already said.
> 
> First of all, I prefer to stick to the rules and like to treat these two exceptions as being special exceptions that I consider non existent.
> 
> Next, I had a look at the poster, which made clear that there indeed are several ways to see N-N-constructions.
> 
> There are two more devices of the wings:
> {tel SeHwI'} is a controlling device OF the wings or FOR the wings. N 2 is directly modifying N 1. The device is not mounted on the wing.
> 
> {tel vID'Irmey} baffles that control the movement of the wings, again N2 is directly modifying N 1. The device is not mounted on the wing.
> 
> Now, consider the difference between {tel wovmoHwI'mey} "lights shining on the wing" versus {telDaq wovmoHwI'} "lights mounted on the wing but shining in a different direction".
> 
> What I am trying to say is actually what most people have said already; either Okrand was really thinking on the above shown different meaning, or he simply did a mistake due to time pressure of the producers.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> -- 
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> Grammarian of the KLI
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
> http://www.klingonwiki.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160212/c97030d8/attachment-0001.html>