[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: "Which" and uses of question words

[Rohan Fenwick]

jIjatlhpu' jIH:
> We have no canon for {nuq} in noun-noun constructions, but I do think
> it's possible to say things like {nuq taj} "the knife of what?", which
> would parallel {'Iv taj} "whose knife?". Similarly, {taj nuq} would be
> "what of the knife?". To contrive an example, {voDleH nuq vItlhapnIS}
> would mean "what [thing] belonging to the emperor must I take?".

mujang SuStel, jatlh:
> Actually we have a couple of canonical sentences that show that {nuq} 
> and {'Iv} can act like verbs in the same way that pronouns can, and 
> Okrand confirmed this in an MSN post that I don't seem to have archived.

(poD vay')

Oh yes, I'm well aware of the verbal usage of {nuq} and {'Iv}. I know that {taj nuq} as a complete utterance would only ever be interpreted as a pro-verbal construction "what is a knife?". What I'm saying is that we don't have any canon for the use of these pronouns specifically in a noun-noun construction: that is, not just happening to appear next to a noun, but taking the same kind of genitive relationship that is usual in a noun-noun construction. In other words, can we say things like {'Iv 'etlh Dayan} "whose sword are you wielding?", or {voDleH nuq vItlhapnIS} "what thing of the emperor's must I take?".

Canon is silent on this, but I don't see any reason why not, and in these instances any ambiguity with pro-verbal constructions would be resolved by the presence of another finite verb in the sentence, which would force a nominal interpretation of {'Iv} and {nuq} instead of a verbal one.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151207/d3337811/attachment.html>