[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[qov at kli.org]

I, too, think it's odd that people are calling this a noun-noun construction. As far as I'm concerned, any noun phrase is over when you get to a type-5. I don't think it's an error, because it' a repeated pattern in canon. I think the noun or noun phrase ending in the type-5 establishes the setting for a sentence, as it always does, and then, because it's a mere label, there doesn't happen to be a complete sentence there.

If someone asked, {qatlh 'orwI' chaw' qem Qov?} and someone else answered {qep'a'vo' puvmeH} I would understand if someone jumped on the answerer to accuse them of not having spoken a full sentence. They'd say that a -meH clause is supposed to precede the main clause, and as there is no main clause in the sentence it's not right.  I'd give them a pat on the head or a gold star or whatever it was they wanted, but I wouldn't have a problem with the answer as it stands.

Likewise when a label or title says {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} : we're all agreed it's not a sentence. If the title were merely {QamchIyDaq} or {'uQ'a'} I think we'd all be fine with it and have no questions.  If the sentence were {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a' 'oH} or {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a' Del lut 'ay'vam} no one would blink. "This chapter describes the feast at Kram-chee." To me any chapter heading is an implied {... Del lut 'ay'vam} so anything that would reasonably start off that sentence fits well as a chapter heading. Yes, it fails to be a complete sentence.

I would fight derisively against anything resembling *{Dun  QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'}. The only reason 'uQ'a' can follow QamchIyDaq is that everything in a sentence can follow QamchIyDaq. To me it's not necessary to have a complete sentence in order to have a valid chunk of Klingon. For people who feel that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} is an error, do you feel that way about other utterances that lack a verb?

- Qov

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SuStel [mailto:sustel at trimboli.name]
> Sent: February 10, 2016 9:09
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun
> 
> On 2/10/2016 11:41 AM, Brent Kesler wrote:
> 
> [snip derivation]
> 
> > 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.
> 
> That makes the rule completely meaningless then. Why does it exist if you
> can simply redefine the first noun as a noun phrase that includes a syntactic
> suffix?
> 
> I think it's clear that when Okrand says "noun" in section 3.4 he means "noun
> or noun phrase." Whether N1 and N2 are nouns or noun phrases, N1 can't
> have a type 5 suffix. {QamchIyDaq} is a noun AND a noun phrase—every
> noun is both a noun and a noun phrase—and it's being excluded from the
> rule. Being inflected for syntax doesn't make a noun any less a noun, but it
> DOES disqualify it from being "N1." The rule says that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} is
> illegal, period.
> 
> I'm rather amazed at the gymnastics everyone is going through to avoid
> admitting the phrase violates the rule. It might be an error or it might be an
> exception, but I still see no way it can legitimately be said to follow the rule.
> 
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol