[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[SuStel]

On 2/11/2016 11:46 AM, De'vID wrote:
> 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.

That would be one possible solution, though Okrand would have to give it.

> 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.)

This sounds nonsensical to me. How could a noun followed by another 
noun, in a genitive relationship, not be a noun-noun? I would say that 
every genitive construction that consists of one noun genitively 
modifying a following noun is the very definition of a noun-noun 
construction.

> 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?

* Because the English phrases that Okrand started with lead directly to 
the N-N violations. When given "cat in the hat" (okay, "tribble in the 
helmet"), Krankor came up with {mIvDaq yIH} as the most natural and 
obvious translation, and Krankor is known for intentionally ignoring 
rules he does not like or didn't know about until someone pointed out 
his error. This is what Okrand obviously did, too: he either ignored or 
forgot about the rule, and put together the most natural and obvious 
translation of the English.

* Because assuming they're grammatically correct non-NNs requires you to 
assume a verb has been cut off the end of a hypothetical sentence, for 
which I have yet to see any evidence EXCEPT the illegality of N5-N (and 
you can't prove a rule by pointing out the rule to prove it).

* Because we have no evidence of any OTHER kind of grammatical 
association between these words.

* Because if you ignore the broken rule these phrases mean EXACTLY what 
the English says they mean.

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

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name