[Tlhingan-hol] 'arDaq

[SuStel]

On 6/18/2014 11:38 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> SuStel:
>> There is no such rule that I'm aware of. You can't have a type 5
>> noun suffix on the first noun of a noun-noun construction, but
>> there's no rule about it migrating.
>
> lojmitti7wi7nuv:
>>> This is an odd rule since it's non-trivial trying to come up with an
>>> example where you'd be tempted to put the Type 5 on the first noun.
>>> Maybe I've just been following this rule so long that I can't think of
>>> a reason to want to break it...
>
> SuStel:
>> Krankor has been known to break this rule with his {mIvDaq yIH} "tribble
>> in a helmet" (i.e., cat in the hat). Okrand also breaks the rule on the
>> Bird of Prey poster, though I can't recall the exact phrases. I've seen
>> lots of people on this list break the rule in the same way, so it's not
>> non-trivial.[]
>
> FYI, examples of {-Daq} in the BOP Poster:

[...]

>    telDaq wovmoHwI'mey
>    Wing Lights

This is the only one that actually violates the N-N rule.

> It occurs to me that the grammar of brief labels, chapter headings,
> isolated phrases, etc. may be different than that of full sentences and,
> especially, connected literary prose. Perhaps more a difference of style.

Possibly, but I think it unlikely; I'd need to see a lot more and better 
examples before I entertained that notion seriously.

This one seems to actually go out of its way to violate the rule (says 
the guy who just split an infinitive in this very sentence without 
batting an eye). A direct translation of the English would have been 
{tel wovwI'mey} "wing lights." The {-Daq} is not 
only—apparently—ungrammatical, it's also completely unnecessary.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/