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

[Robyn Stewart]

The noun-noun is something you need to master and use often. 

The construction that you like, but which confuses is the noun in apposition one: when you are not using one noun to modify another, but using two nouns to describe the same thing. 

For example, loDnI'wI', Sub, ghaH. "he's my brother, the hero" might be better expressed as {loDnI'wI', Sub je ghaH},  

{HaqwI' HoHwI'} is a killer of surgeons. {HoHwI' HaqwI'} might be an assassin's surgeon.  If you want to call someone a "killer surgeon" you need a different construction. 

You usually use this construction in insults. 

Make sense?

> On Feb 27, 2016, at 4:48, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Qov:
>> It's a construction you (qunnoq) like to use, so I suggest you explore
>> some alternatives, just so that people have the best chance of understanding
>> you.
> 
> This confuses me.. I can understand that when it comes to the phrase
> {vum verengan},someone could be confused because we have also the verb
> {vum}, which complicates things. On the other hand though, when we
> have two nouns in a row, with none of them existing as verb too, then
> I guess that only one of the three possibilities may exist :
> 
> 1. either it is a case of possessor possessed (the son of the father)
> 2. or it is a case where one noun describes an other (limb surgeon)
> 3. or as it was discussed earlier in this thread, the two nouns can be
> used in apposition (being "equal" in meaning) (that ferengi, that dog)
> 
> As I understand it so far, unless we have the case of a noun that
> exists as verb too, I believe that if someone knows how to place the
> correct suffixes there is no confusion. Of course I accept that
> currently, I do not possess the skill in order to make this kind of
> correct suffix-use.
> 
> But here is the trap (at least for me it is)..
> 
> If I say <because currently I haven't mastered the use of suffixes,
> then I will refrain from the use of noun-noun constructions>, then I
> will never learn. According  to this reasoning, since currently I
> haven't mastered anything in klingon, then I should not write anything
> in klingon. (?!?!). So, how will I learn ?
> 
> Unless something is wrong, I fail to see why someone shouldn't use it,
> or at least try to learn it in the first place.
> 
> mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq
> what was I before I heard the words of the code ? nothing..
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:39 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh at wizage.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:33 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I agree that {vum verengan} is difficult to parse because it can mean “The
>>> Ferengi works,” “the bastard’s Ferengi” or “the bastard, the Ferengi”. That
>>> last interpretation is the one I’d be most hesitant to take because it seems
>>> redundant, and the Klingon language doesn’t tend toward redundancy,
>>> evidenced by it’s handling of plurality.
>>> 
>>> We do need a Klingon word for “sniper”, unless they simply think it
>>> dishonorable to kill without being seen. They do use cloaking devices, after
>>> all.
>> 
>> quv Hutlh HoHbogh tlhIngan 'ach qabDaj 'angbe'bogh.
>> The Klingon who kills without showing his face has no honor.
>> 
>> Cloaking devices have to be deactivated before they can attack (unless you
>> are Chang).
>> 
>> qurgh
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol