[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: ghum

[SuStel]

On 2/26/2016 5:00 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
> jiH:
>> ghummaj wIjommeH vumvetlh verenganvaD Huch law' wInob.
>> in order to install our alarm we gave a lot of money to that bastard ferengi.
>
> SuStel:
>> Use {vum verenganvetlhvaD} if you want "that Ferengi who is a bastard"
>> (a noun-noun construction in which {vum} tells us what kind of {verenganvetlh}
>> we're dealing with) or {vumvetlhvaD verenganvaD} for "for that bastard, the
>> Ferengi" to put the nouns in apposition (in which case they need to be of the same type).
>
> 1. I realize now, that the correct way to say <that Ferengi who is a
> bastard> is {vum verenganvetlhvaD}.

Be aware that I chose that wording to make clear my meaning, not that it 
is the "correct" way to say it. You could also say {vum ghaHbogh 
verengan'e'}, for instance. Normally I WOULD translate {vum 
verenganvetlhvaD} as "for that Ferengi bastard," but that makes it 
harder to explain my meaning.

> Just out of curiosity though.. Could you please write, to what
> actually translates the phrase that I wrote <vumvetlh verenganvaD> ?
> After reading your comments indeed I *feel* it to be wrong, but I
> can't quite understand to what it translates. Perhaps <for the
> ferengi, that bastard> ?

> a. could you please explain what <to put the nouns in apposition>
> means ?
 > b. could you please also explain what <in which case they need to be
 > of the same type> means ?

You see how you put a comma between "the ferengi" and "that bastard"? 
You're equating them, saying that "the ferengi" and "that bastard" are 
the same entity. That's what apposition does. That's not what you're 
doing here: if the two phrases were the same entity, then both phrases 
would have {-vaD} on them, to make them equal.

It's kind of like how you have to put {-DI'} on both verbs when you say 
{jIghungDI' 'ej jItlhutlhDI' jISop 'ej jItlhutlh} "when I am hungry and 
when I am thirsty I eat and I drink." You can't say {jIghungDI' 'ej 
jItlhutlh} for "when I am hungry and thirsty" because it really means 
something like "when I am hungry and [not when] I am thirsty." You have 
to make the two clauses "of the same type" (both "when" clauses) because 
they play equal roles in the sentence. The same is true when you put 
nouns in apposition: if the nouns refer to the same entity, they need 
the same syntactic suffixes. You can't just say {vumvetlh, verenganvaD}; 
you have to say {vumvetlhvaD, verenganvaD}. Otherwise {vumvetlh} is 
playing no role in the sentence; it's not a "for" noun.

Now here's the tricky part. {vumvetlh verenganvaD} means something like 
"for the that-bastard Ferengi." It's not really meaningful. If you read 
it word-for-suffix-for-word in English, yes, it comes out as "that 
bastard the Ferengi," but it doesn't mean "that bastard [comma] the 
Ferengi." It's not apposition.

That's why I suggested {vum verenganvetlhvaD} "for that Ferengi 
bastard." This is a noun-noun construction, where the first noun 
modifies the second noun's meaning. What kind of Ferengi? The bastard 
Ferengi.

> 2. I noticed that one of the proposed correct options, is the
> {vumvetlhvaD verenganvaD}. The first and most striking thing I observe
> is that we have the {-vaD} used twice i.e. in each one of the
> noun-noun pair. So far I believed that in noun-noun pairs we can't
> have the same suffix used simultaneously in each one of these nouns.

Because that option is NOT meant as a noun-noun construction, it is two 
nouns in apposition. They both refer to the same entity. Write it this 
way to avoid confusion: {vumvetlhvaD, verenganvaD} "for that bastard, 
for the Ferengi."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name