[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[qurgh lungqIj]

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:01 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

>
> He could have said simply, {QamchIy 'uQ'a'} "the feast of Qam-Chee."
>
> Later on he uses a title {SIqral bIQtIq ghom} "Assembly at the River
> Skral." Why didn't he say {SIqral bIQtIqDaq ghom}? That even works with
> {ghom} as a verb.
>
> And then later is {SIqral bIQtIq may'} "The Battle at the River Skral,"
> and not *{SIqral bIQtIqDaq may'}.
>
> What do noun-noun constructions have to do with whether these are complete
> sentences? {nuH pegh} means "secret of the weapon" whether it's in a
> complete sentence or not. *{qamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} is wrong, according to TKD,
> whether it's in a complete sentence or not.
>
>
It's wrong if it was a noun-noun construction, so it must not be a
noun-noun construction.

It must be just a location, followed by a noun. It's a title after all, so
I don't think it's supposed to be a complete sentence.

qamchIyDaq 'uQ'a' - "At Qam-Chee, the feast"

tanaghra'Daq Darmoq jalaD je - "At Tanagra, Darmok and Jalad"

tachDaq HIvje'mey - "At the bar, glasses"

To make these complete sentences, I need only add a verb:

qamchIyDaq 'uQ'a' vISop - At Qam-Chee, I ate a feast

tanaghra'Daq Darmoq jalaD je vIlegh - At Tanagra, I see Darmok and Jalad

tachDaq HIvje'mey vIQaw' - At the bar, I destroy the glasses

None of those phrases above have noun-noun constructions. Just because two
nouns are near each other, it doesn't mean they are always part of a
noun-noun construction.

qurgh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160205/b1675088/attachment.html>