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

[mayql qunenoS]

thank you very much SuStel ! everything became clearer now !

mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:19 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol