[Tlhingan-hol] 'arDaq

[SuStel]

On 6/18/2014 2:46 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
> With something like {mIvDaq yIH} sitting on its own, I see it as the
> beginning of {mIvDaq yIH vIlegh}, which I'm okay as interpreting as
> me not being in the hat too, thanks to <pa'vo' pagh leghlu'> (the
> room has no view) from the tapes. I'm happy with a sentence fragment
> being used as a standalone title. I would reject *{muSuch mIvDaq
> yIH}.
>
> Likewise  {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey} could be expanded to {telDaq
> wovmoHwI'mey lujomlu'} and it seems perfectly reasonable to omit the
> verb. luch jomlu'bogh bopmo' Doch naQ.

This is the usual defense for these phrases, but I don't buy it. You 
COULD expand such phrases, but that's not what their writers/utterers 
meant. I'm sure, for instance, that Krankor simply forgot about the 
rule, and that he would accept *{muSuch mIvDaq yIH}. If you subsequently 
pointed out the rule, he'd say it was a stupid rule, and would continue 
violating it.

I think any canonical examples of N-5 N are either errors, exceptions, 
or a special grammar we haven't discovered, as Voragh suggested. I don't 
think they're sentences that happen to have been cut off at exactly the 
right moment that they completely coincidentally look exactly like an 
original English noun–prepositional phrase.

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