[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> 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:
> * 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.

Perhaps he did. Again, there are still two ways to interpret this: 1.
he created a noun-noun construction which violates the rule; 2. what
he created isn't a noun-noun construction, by his own definition.

SuStel:
> * 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).

As ghunchu'wI' has pointed out, TKD 7.1 allows a noun to serve as a
command if it's clear what's meant. Clipped Klingon also sets a
precedent in allowing parts of sentences to be dropped. {QamchIyDaq
'uQ'a'} communicates clearly what the chapter is about. It doesn't
even matter if there's a hypothetical sentence. "At Qam-Chee, a
feast". What else could it mean?

And I'm not sure why you can't prove a rule by pointing it out. That's
what a rule is: something that defines what is legitimate or not. I
guess where we differ that is I see the rule as being like a
definition: if something violates it, then it isn't the thing so
defined.

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

We have a locative and a noun. The noun is located where the locative
says it's located.

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

But that's true whether you label the phrase a noun-noun construction or not.

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

Because that's the interpretation most compatible with TKD 3.4? I
suppose you would argue that your interpretation is more compatible
with it, though.

Because it does not require the belief that a canonical Klingon
fragment violates given Klingon grammar? Klingon has a category of
things which are neither verbs nor nouns (and hence not noun-noun
constructions): chuvmey.

-- 
De'vID