[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[Brent Kesler]

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 7:21 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> This is what TKD says:
> <When the noun-noun construction is used, only the second noun can
> take syntactic suffixes (Type 5). Both nouns, however, may take
> suffixes of the other four types.>
>


I have to wonder if we're reading this rule a little too literally. I've
always read it as "This is how you fit a compound noun into a larger
phrase: put the Type 5 suffix at the *end *of the compound noun."

Let me put it this way: what do we do if we have a noun-noun-*noun*
 construction?

1. Meet me at this city's Hall of Heroes.
    vengvam Subpu' vaSDaq HIghom.


I think that's a perfectly acceptable sentence. If someone objected, "TKD
only permits two-noun constructions; three-noun constructions are off
limits," I'd think they were misreading the rule. If someone told me, "No,
{-Daq} has to go on {Subpu'}, since {Subpu'} is the second noun," I'd think
that's an outright bizarre interpretation.

So if we accept three-noun constructions, we have to figure out how to
apply the two-noun rule for Type 5 suffixes. The simple answer is that we
shouldn't think of the phrase {vengvam Subpu' vaS} as a *chain* of three
nouns. It really is a noun-noun construction, but the second noun is a
compound noun. Once two nouns join together in a noun-noun construction,
that noun-noun construction can be treated as a single noun that can fit
into *another* noun-noun construction.

2. vengvam Subpu' vaS --> (vengvam (Subpu' vaS))


A noun-noun construction can also be the first noun in the larger noun-noun
construction.

3. The ship captain's sword: Duj HoD yan --> ((Duj HoD) yan)


If we apply a Type 5 suffix to either Example 2 or Example 3, we put it on
the third *word*, but that doesn't violate the rule, because the third word
is just part of the second *noun*, which can be simple or compound.

>From this line of reasoning, we get a production rule for *noun phrases:*

   NP --> N or (N NP) or (NP N)

In this rule, an noun phrase (NP) has at most two parts: a noun (N) and
another noun phrase. (I'm ignoring adjectivial verbs for now.) Since the
rule is recursive, it can produce an arbitrarily long chain of nouns.

If we recast the Type 5 rule as "A Type 5 suffix can only go on the second
element of a noun phrase", and we can have multiple noun phrases embedded
within a larger noun phrase, then phrases like {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} fit the
rule. I think the argument becomes clearer in this example:

4. The Feast at the Hall of Heroes
   Subpu' vaSDaq 'uQ'a'

Here, the noun-noun construction {Subpu' vaS} takes a Type 5 suffix *on its
second noun*. This example fits both MO's original formulation and my
re-interpretation!

My re-interpretation of the rule even fits how we handle nouns with
adjectivial verbs:

   NP --> N Va

Since we put {-Daq} at the end of the noun phrase, the rule fits how we
handle nouns with adjectivial verbs (Va):

5. In the big hall
   vaS tInDaq

I think this is a fair interpretation of MO's intent. It fits canon and at
least the spirit of the rule as stated in TKD.

TKD is a grammatical sketch, not a comprehensive description. It was
written in 1985 as a quick and dirty guide for non-linguists, so sometimes
MO uses vague and imprecise hints rather than formal rules. I know we have
to be careful about applying that excuse to every inconsistency we find,
but I think we have strong line of reasoning to use it in this case.


Even though I accept {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} as grammatical, I don't buy this
argument:

Since {-Daq} is on the first noun in these pairs, if we go by the
> definition in TKD, they are not noun-noun constructions (in the sense
> defined in TKD 3.4).


On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:

> Definitely not a noun-noun construction. If the first noun in an N-N could
> carry a type-5 it would render much of our corpus unintelligible. The type
> five is like a marker in conversation that  the noun phrase is over.
>

I think this is begging the question. It's saying, "This phrase breaks the
rules, but we keep using it, so it must not break the rules." It exempts
{QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} from the rule without explaining why it's grammatical.
My interpretation does both.


bI'reng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160210/7c287c80/attachment.html>