[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[kechpaja at comcast.net]

Is that really a noun-noun construction at all, though? From a syntactic point of view, I'd say that a noun with a type 5 suffix falls into a different syntactic category than a noun without one (in English it would be a prepositional phrase rather than a noun phrase; I'm not sure what to call it in Klingon).

To look at it another way: perhaps that rule doesn't imply that a noun with a type 5 suffix can't be *in* a noun-noun construction, so much as that a construction whose first element is a noun with a type 5 suffix would by definition be a different sort of construction.

OTOH, DaH {TKD}wIj vIghajbe', and I don't remember the wording of that section perfectly, so I could be missing something. 

-SapIr

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 5, 2016, at 10:46, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> Here's a chapter heading from paq'batlh:
> 
>   qamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'
>   The Feast at Qam-Chee
> 
> This is not the first instance of Okrand violating the rule in TKD that the first noun of a noun-noun construction not have a type 5 suffix on it.
> 
> I have a theory as to what's going on: the suffix is allowed as long as the phrase is not part of a verbal clause. We've only ever seen this violation in standalong noun phrases. (And let's face reality: it's because Okrand is translating from standalone English noun phrases that include prepositions, and he's forgotten the rule.)
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol