[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[De'vID]

bI'reng:
> 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.

We're told that if we have N1-N2, then only N2 can take type 5
suffixes. There are basically two ways to logically extend this rule
to a chain of n nouns N1-N2-...-Nn: either a type 5 suffix is
forbidden only on N1, or a type 5 suffix is only allowed on Nn.

I think the more sensible interpretation is that {-Daq} is allowed
only on the last noun of the chain.

bI'reng:
> 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 don't see how. This is N1Daq-N2.

bI'reng:
> 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.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here, but the way you're
proposing to interpret the rule looks to me like it's identical to the
non-existence of the rule. TKD may be a grammatical sketch, but I
think it's safe to assume that where it specifies rules, they are
rules that make the language different from their absence (even if the
description lacks in details or fails to mention exceptions).

-- 
De'vID