[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[De'vID]

SuStel:
> The rule says that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} is illegal, period.

The rule says that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} and {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey} would
be illegal as noun-noun constructions. But are they noun-noun
constructions? That's the crux of the matter.

It's possible that that's what they are, and that they are exceptions.
Perhaps Klingons have spoken of {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a' luloplu'pu'bogh}
for so long, and {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey lujomlu'bogh} are so common,
that they've just become set expressions.

On the other hand, we both recognise that they would violate the rule
that {-Daq} cannot be on N1 if they are. Almost everyone else who has
commented on this thread seem to have drawn the conclusion that,
therefore, these are not examples of noun-noun constructions (as
described in TKD 3.4). You've argued that the examples show a genitive
relationship between N1 and N2, but even if they did, why would that
make them a noun-noun construction? TKD 3.4 clearly says that they are
not. (Even if every noun-noun construction is genitive, it does not
follow that every genitive construction is noun-noun, as defined in
TKD 3.4.)

Basically, there are two ways to understand the situation:
1. they are noun-noun constructions which violate the rule given in TKD 3.4
2. they are not noun-noun constructions

For what reason should anyone prefer interpretation #1 over interpretation #2?

SuStel:
> I'm rather amazed at the gymnastics everyone is going through to avoid
> admitting the phrase violates the rule. It might be an error or it might be
> an exception, but I still see no way it can legitimately be said to follow
> the rule.

With the exception of bI'reng, I believe what everyone else has said
is that the rule doesn't even apply, because the examples given aren't
even noun-noun constructions as described in TKD 3.4.

-- 
De'vID