[Tlhingan-hol] 'arDaq

[SuStel]

On 6/20/2014 10:09 AM, Brad Wilson wrote:
> Regarding
>
>> telDaq wovmoHwI'mey
>
>> Wing Lights
>
>> 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.
>
> What would be the distinction between lights that are an integral
> part of the wings (say, for navigation) and lights which are used to
> illuminate the wings (say, for identification or maintenance)? I
> don't think that distinction explains this example, but I was just
> curious.

There is no specific grammatical distinction that can be made. You can 
make these distinctions with subordinate clauses:

chIjmeH tel wovwI'mey
wing lights for navigating

ngu'meH tel wovwI'mey
wing lights for identifying

leHmeH tel wovwI'mey
wing lights for maintaining

If you wanted to specify the lights' positions, you could say something 
like:

tel bIng wovwI'mey
wing underside lights

tel bIng wovbogh wovwI'mey
lights that illuminate wings' undersides

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