[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

Good example.

{wovmoHwI’mey telDaq} would look like a noun-noun construction being used as a locative. “At the wings of the lights” or “At the lights’ wings”. That’s not what the poster is trying to convey.

{telDaq wovmoHwI’mey} is not a noun-noun construction. There is no “genitive” relationship between these words. This is a sentence fragment. “At the wings, lights.” If you saw the sentence {telDaq wovmoHwI’mey tu’lu’} you would not consider {telDaq wovmoHwI’mey} to be a noun noun construction. Why do you insist on interpreting it that way when the rest of the sentence is omitted? 

It’s like every pair of nouns is being forced into being interpreted as a noun noun construction. In truth, sometimes nouns wind up being next to each other for other reasons than to form a noun noun construction.

tlhInganpu’ chaH Qov Qanqor je.

Do you interpret {Qov Qanqor} to be a noun noun construction? There they are. Two nouns next to each other.

A larger context reveals that it’s just two nouns that happen to be next to each other with a conjunction after them.

juHDaq ‘uQ vISop.

Do you consider {juHDaq ‘uQ} to be a noun noun construction?

Nouns appear next to each other in apposition, with conjunctions, or in adjacent Type-5 suffixed grammatical constructions, all without being noun noun. There is no problem here, unless you artificially force every pair of nouns into this one definition of a relationship between a pair of nouns.

Noun noun is useful, but it is not the only reason nouns are placed next to each other.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Feb 10, 2016, at 2:38 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160210/b3973eff/attachment.html>