[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[SuStel]

On 2/11/2016 11:50 AM, David Holt wrote:
> My own view of this, for what it's worth among a group of speakers
> more skilled than I...
>
> jatlh SuStel:
>
>> On 2/11/2016 10:05 AM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
>>> Placing two nouns next to each other does not make them a
>>> genitive pair.
>>
>> No, but placing two nouns next to each other, in which the first
>> noun modifies the meaning of the second noun, DOES make them a
>> genitive pair.
>
> Unless and until Dr. Okrand fills us in on exactly what his intent
> was (assuming he remembers) we cannot know for sure.  I will admit
> that one of the possibilities is that he forgot about the rule of no
> type-5 suffixes on the first noun of a noun-noun and did indeed
> intend it to be genitive at that moment.  It seems a little odd to me
> that he wouldn't use the simpler and more straightforward genitive of
> {tel wovmoHwI'mey}.  However, it wouldn't be the first time he had
> accidentally broken one of the rules he created.  Thus, I agree that
> you are not crazy to think that this might be an error in canon.
>
> Fortunately we have a way to interpret it as still fitting within the
> rules.  It is not so outrageous to consider the first noun to be a
> location and thus discount this phrase as a noun-noun construction.
> The meaning does not change significantly from the genitive meaning
> and still fits the rules.  Regardless of the original intent or any
> of the rule-breaking ways we might read this, there is a
> rule-following way to read this that makes sense (even if it does
> perhaps seem a little odd).  I think I will join the chorus following
> this path.

Now, see, I completely agree with you. You've said nothing I disagree with.

* We cannot know for sure.
* One possibility is that he forgot the rule.
* He may have intended the phrases to be genitive.
* I'm not crazy. :)
* You CAN see it as a sentence fragment.
* This explanation is a little odd.

To that I simply add that I think the forgot-the-rule explanation is the 
correct one, and that the sentence-fragment explanation is more than a 
little odd, it's strained.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name