[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[De'vID]

SuStel:
> That is correct. But if the purpose of {QamchIyDaq} in the title is to
> identify that the feast is taking place in Qam-chee, then that is a genitive
> meaning, whether it's a noun-noun or not. Given that the original English
> title uses the preposition "at Qam-chee" to identify which feast we're
> talking about, can you not see the thinking that might lead someone, who had
> forgotten about the type-5 rule, to do exactly the same thing in Klingon:
> identify what feast he was talking about? TKD even says that "In other
> instances, English indicates the function of nouns in a sentence by adding
> words, particularly prepositions," and then goes on immediately to describe
> {-Daq}.

If your contention is that Okrand forgot a grammar rule (or several)
while translating the paq'batlh chapter titles (which are not full
sentences), that's probably true. Klingon is deliberately verb-based.
Asked to translate a noun phrase like "the feast at Qam-Chee", he
probably just came up with each part, {QamchIyDaq} and {'uQ'a'}, and
strung them together, without much thought. Is the result a noun-noun
construction? It seems most Klingon speakers say no. The result is
just a locative followed by a noun.

If the chapter title had been, say, "The Feast at Qam-Chee was
wonderful", he'd have probably realised that he couldn't just stick
{QamchIyDaq} in front of {'uQ'a'} like that to make a noun-noun
construction. But that's not what he had to translate.

De'vID:
>> Other labels on the poster also take similar grammatical shortcuts:
>> {nISwI' talmey: cha' (telDaq lujomlu')}

SuStel:
> There is no indication that any other titles in paq'batlh take grammatical
> shortcuts, and there is a statement by Okrand that the translation is
> formal, not conversational.

I don't have the paq'batlh on me right now. Are all the titles full
sentences? I thought at least some of them were just nouns.

De'vID:
>> What's the grammatical relationship between {nISwI' talmey} and {cha'}
>> here? According to TKD, "Numbers used as modifiers precede the noun
>> they modify." If we're going to be that literal, then what you have in
>> that label is the noun construction {nISwI' talmey} and the number
>> {cha'}, with no grammatical relationship between them.

SuStel:
> The relationship between {cha'} and {nISwI' talmey} is given by the colon.
> "A colon precedes an explanation, or an enumeration or list." (Wikipedia)

Except that the Latin transcription we use to write Klingon isn't what
Klingons actually use to write Klingon. We don't know what
punctuation, if any, Klingons use. We only know that a Klingon,
reading what's on the poster (if it was written in {pIqaD}), would
mentally think something like: {nISwI' talmey (probably a slight
pause) cha'}, and have no problem understanding that there are two
disruptor cannons, despite the odd grammar.

If the Latin transcription on the poster had said {telDaq:
wovmoHwI'mey}, and if the chapter title in paq'batlh had bee
{QamchIyDaq: 'uQ'a'}, would those have been acceptable to you?

SuStel:
> Interesting how they're not simply *{telDaq nISwI' talmey}, but this time
> Okrand felt he had to specify that supposedly missing verb: {telDaq
> lujomlu'}. And he DIDN'T say {telDaq nISwI' talmey lujomlu'}. Very
> interesting indeed. Why do you think that is?

Because he wrote the Klingon translations to match the English
originals he was given:

{telDaq wovmoHwI'mey} "Wing Lights"

{nISwI' talmey: cha' (telDaq lujomlu')}
"Disruptor Cannon - 2 (Wing Mounted)"

{nISwI': cha' chang'engmey (telDaq lujomlu', nItebHa' lubaHlu')}
"Disruptor - 2 Pairs (Wing Mounted, Fire Linked)"

If he had been given "wing-mounted disrupter cannons", I'm sure the
result would've been {telDaq nISwI' talmey lujomlu'pu'bogh}, and if
the original phrasing of the contentious translation had been "Lights
(Wing Mounted)", the translation would've come out as {wovmoHwI'mey
(telDaq lujomlu')}. He's writing (perhaps ungrammatical) Klingon
snippets to match the (likewise not quite grammatical) English
snippets.

Based on the other wing-mounted things on the poster, I'd read {telDaq
wovmoHwI'mey} as an abbreviated form of {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey
lujomlu'pu'bogh}.

Considering that {muDDaq 'eDSeHcha lulaQlu'bogh} also appears on the
poster, assuming that Okrand did all the translations together, he
would've presumably been aware that you can't stick {telDaq} or
{muDDaq} in front of another noun to form a noun-noun construction.

-- 
De'vID