[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[Robyn Stewart]

> 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? 

Yes. A sentence that concludes with {bIH} or {lujomlu'} or something else so
devoid of extra information that it's not included. It's the same reason the
English doesn't say "these are the..." 

> The two words next to each other are not trying to convey the
> idea of "lights on a wing"?

Indeed they are. But not in a noun-noun structure with an N5 in the middle
of it.  In a context-Daq stuff structure. 

> 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}?

No, because that would mean "on the wing of the lights" and would be waiting
for something to be placed in that context.  If the lights had little wings,
which themselves had shields, then they could be labelled with as
{wovmoHwI'mey telDaq botjan}. (The purpose of the wings on the lights would
be so you can see them over the wingtip from the cockpit, and the purpose of
the shields would be so you didn't accidentally smash the lights when
taxiing close to fences. Ask me how I know.)

> Why does Okrand ONLY produce this formation when translating "cat-in-the-
hat" phrases from English? 

I think the important part is that he only produces it when translating
things that are not sentences. If he ever did this in a sentence, like the
*{Dun QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} I mentioned earlier, then I would be with you that
it was seriously wrong or needed a backfit.  If you come home and discover
that there is raw meat sitting on a plate, do you assume your wife is trying
to serve you up trichinosis or that she was using what is usually a serving
vessel as an intermediate step in meal preparation?  I trust Okrand and
don't think he's trying to poison the language, so I'm going with this
reasonable explanation rather than suspicion.

> Why aren't there any other you-supply-the-missing-sentence constructions? 

Any unaccompanied noun would fall into the same category for me.  It's a
label.  A sole noun or an actual noun-noun doesn't have a specified
location, like telDaq wovmoHwI', but it's just as stranded. Would you feel
the exact same way about {jIghungmo' Soj} as {wovmoHwI'mey telDaq}?  Would
you still feel that way if it was in reply to the question {nuq DapoQ?}? It
means {jIghungmo' Soj vIpoQ} but I didn't bother to finish the
sentence--jIghungmo'.

> Why doesn't TKD section 3.4 say anything about its rules applying only in
sentences?

At work without my TKD and no longer have the sections memorized. I'm going
to assume 3.4 is about not having a type-5 on the second noun in a n-n
construction, and the answer is "because this isn't a N-N construction any
more than {DujDaq be'} is in the sentence {DujDaq be' vIlegh}."

How do you feel about a sentence like {tajDaq ret'aq vIyach}? 

- Qov