[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> 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.

SuStel:
> I disagree. Nothing in that section restricts the meaning of the noun-noun
> to sentences, or claims that noun-nouns are formed especially for sentences.

The section describes a construction, the noun-noun construction,
which (like compound nouns) can take the place of simple nouns. That
is, wherever a simple noun can be used, a noun-noun construction can
be used.

One logical consequence of this is that a noun-noun construction is
necessarily able to take the place of a simple noun in a sentence. A
N1-5 N2 construction cannot (at least not without introducing
additional ambiguity), and therefore, a N1-5 N2 construction is not a
noun-noun construction as defined in TKD 3.4.

SuStel:
> If I want to stick a post-it on my computer monitor, labeling it {De'wI'
> jIH}, I have no sentence in mind, yet the noun-noun remains. It's a {jIH},
> and {De'wI'} explains what kind of {jIH} it is.

Indeed, that is a noun-noun construction. If, however, you stuck a
sticker on your {De'wI' jIH} with the label {De'wI' jIHDaq HumwI'},
that label would not be a noun-noun construction as defined in TKD.
It'd be something else (perhaps something that falls under {chuvmey}).
You apparently want to claim that it would be a noun-noun
construction, just one that violates the rule. If that's an accurate
representation of your position, I think at this point we're just
arguing over definitions. We both understand that N1-5 N2 can't always
take the place of any noun. From my perspective, that makes it not a
noun-noun construction. According to you, it is a noun-noun
construction, just one that violates the rules. We basically have
different ideas of what the definition of a noun-noun construction is.

-- 
De'vID