[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[SuStel]

On 2/10/2016 2:07 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:

> The title we’ve been given {QamchIyDaq ‘uQ’a'} is not problematic
> because it is not a sentence. QamchIyDaq is a place and {‘uQ’a’} is a
> thing at that place. What is the problem? Since there is no verb, there
> is no confusion over grammatical function in the sentence. It would be
> perfectly fine as a sentence, as in:
>
> QamchIyDaq ‘uQ’a’ vISop.
>
> Nobody would interpret {QamchIyDaq ‘uQ’a’} as a noun-noun construction
> in that sentence. They’d see {QamchIyDaq} as a locative, and {‘uQ’a’} as
> a direct object of {Sop}.
>
> I completely agree that this is not a noun-noun construction with a Type
> 5 suffix on the first noun. It would be gibberish if it were. It’s not
> that it violates the rule. It DOESN’T violate the rule because it’s not
> a noun-noun construction. It’s just two nouns, not in a sentence. The
> whole reason for a noun-noun grammatical construction as described in
> TKD is to tell you that the last noun in the series has a grammatical
> function in the surrounding sentence, while the earlier nouns in the
> list merely describe or identify the last noun.

So when the Bird of Prey poster points to wing lights and labels them 
with {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey}, these are two unrelated nouns that are 
waiting for a sentence? The two words next to each other are not trying 
to convey the idea of "lights on a wing"? Since they're not in a 
noun-noun relationship, they could just as well have been put next to 
each other as {wovmoHwI'mey telDaq}?

Why does Okrand ONLY produce this formation when translating 
"cat-in-the-hat" phrases from English? Why aren't there any other 
you-supply-the-missing-sentence constructions? Why doesn't TKD section 
3.4 say anything about its rules applying only in sentences?

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/