[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[De'vID]

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> {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.”

SuStel:
> So none of you can see what a ludicrous thing to put on a diagram this is,
> given this interpretation? We don't see "on the bridge, the helm," or "on
> the bottom, the landing gear." So why this item?

We don't see "on the bridge, the helm" because there's only one helm
on a ship, whereas presumably the Bird-of-Prey has lights located in
places other than the wings. If there were two bridges, like on the
Enterprise-D, I wouldn't be surprised to see {meH'a'Daq Degh} "helm on
main bridge" and {may' meHDaq Degh} "helm on battle bridge".

Actually, besides {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey} "Wing Lights", there are a few
other uses of {-Daq} on the Bird-of-Prey poster which may give us a
hint on how to understand {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey}:

{muDDaq 'eDSeHcha lulaQlu'bogh: jav}
"Atmospheric Take-Off/Landing Thrusters - 6"

Here, {muDDaq} is indicating where {laQ} takes place: the thrusters
are fired when in the atmosphere. It'd have been wrong to write
{muDDaq 'eDSeHcha} because the thrusters are not in the atmosphere.

{nISwI' talmey: cha' (telDaq lujomlu')}
"Disruptor Cannon - 2 (Wing Mounted)"

{nISwI': cha' chang'engmey (telDaq lujomlu', nItebHa' lubaHlu')}
"Disruptor - 2 Pairs (Wing Mounted, Fire Linked)"

These employ a full sentence: {telDaq lujomlu'}. No controversy about that.

It's too bad that Okrand wasn't given "Lights - 2 (Wing Mounted)" or
something, which would've resulted in {wovmoHwI'mey: cha' (telDaq
lujomlu')}. Then there'd be no controversy. It's also too bad that he
didn't write {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey lujomlu'bogh}. I presume that this
is what's actually intended, and that the verb was dropped for
brevity, because the meaning is clear. Whatever you may want to argue
about the grammar of {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey}, it's clear that it labels
the lights mounted on the wings.

I'd be surprised to see *{Dun telDaq wovmoHwI'mey}. I wouldn't be
surprised to see {Dun telDaq wovmoHwI'mey lujomlu'bogh}.

btw there are two other uses of {-Daq} on the poster:

{tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq 'oH toQDuj chenmoHlu'meH Daq wa'DIch'e'}
"1st Construction Site: The Kling District, Klingon Home World" (BoP poster)

{(cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq lo' law' bID choQ tu'lu')}
(2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck)

It's interesting that both are sentence fragments in English but full
sentences in Klingon. Also, the second sentence has two {-Daq}'d nouns
one after the other, with the first narrowing the second: the
construction site is in {tlhIng yoS}, which is itself located on
{tlhIngan juHqo'}.

There are some other sentences with multiple {-Daq}'d nouns in canon.

{tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq jIlengpu'}
"I've traveled all over the place" (startrek.klingon newsgroup 1999-11-21)

Here, {'evDaq} and {chanDaq} are independent of each other, i.e.,
{chan} is not located in or narrowed by {'ev}. However, this is an
idiom, so perhaps its grammar is special.

We have a rather more complicated case in this sentence:

{loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh
retlhDaq 'oHtaH.}
"It waits… on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown
regions of the universe"
(SkyBox 99/01)

According to the English translation, it (Deep Space Nine) is both "on
the edge of the galaxy" ({qIb HeHDaq}) and "beside a passage" ({...
He... retlhDaq}). So the two {-Daq}'d nouns are in apposition,
basically. Or perhaps the passage is on the edge of the galaxy. It
doesn't matter which way one interprets this, both interpretations
amount to the same thing.

It's also possible to join {-Daq}'d nouns with {je} (and presumably
other conjunctions).

{'ej Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch vengDaq je Suchbogh ghaH qeylIS luQoy}
"And Kahless spoke to them in every village and city he went"
(paq'batlh, paq'raD 8:19-20)

{poSDaq nIHDaq je QamtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'. chaH jojDaq yItnIS lopwI'.
luchovmeH 'oy'naQmey lo'.}
"The initiate must pass through a gauntlet of warriors who test him
with painsticks." (SkyBox 9)

The fact that it is possible to have multiple {-Daq}'d nouns in the
same sentence is undoubtedly one reason why the rule exists that you
can't have N1-Daq N2 as a compound noun. If you did, you couldn't tell
the difference between {(N1-Daq N2}Daq} and {(N1-Daq) (N2-Daq)}.
Sentences would become more ambiguous if the restriction didn't exist.

The introduction to TKD 3.4 says:
"Some combinations of two (or more) nouns in a row are so common as to
have become everyday words. These are the compound nouns (as discussed
in section 3.2.1). In addition, it is possible to combine nouns in the
manner of a compound noun to produce a new construct even if it is not
a legitimate compound noun ("legitimate" in the sense that it would be
found in a dictionary)."

The intent of that section is clearly to describe something which can
take the place of a simple noun in a sentence. That is, a noun-noun
construction is a thing you can plug into a sentence in place of a
simple noun. Neither {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} or {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey}
appear in a sentence. Unless they do, it's not clear that they are
noun-noun constructions, as described in TKD 3.4.

SuStel:
> If there were no N1-5 N2 restriction, would "at the wings, lights" still be
> your understanding of the words?

If there were no restriction, I'd still see N1-5 N2 as a sentence
fragment. There's no verb. Most of the other labels on the poster are
also sentence fragments.

-- 
De'vID