[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[Brent Kesler]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:05 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> bI'reng:
> > TKD is a grammatical sketch, not a comprehensive description. It was
> written
> > in 1985 as a quick and dirty guide for non-linguists, so sometimes MO
> uses
> > vague and imprecise hints rather than formal rules.
>


Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here, but the way you're
> proposing to interpret the rule looks to me like it's identical to the
> non-existence of the rule.


That's not what I'm trying to do, but I can see how it would look that way.
Anyways, I've abandoned my theory, so it's a moot point.



> TKD may be a grammatical sketch, but I
> think it's safe to assume that where it specifies rules, they are
> rules that make the language different from their absence (even if the
> description lacks in details or fails to mention exceptions).


SuStel is arguing that MO is repeatedly making not just a grammatical
error, but a *major *grammatical error--one that renders the phrase
*meaningless--*and he's backing that up with a rule that I think is worded
imprecisely. I admit my interpretation of the rule doesn't work, but I
think SuStel is far more certain about his argument than he should be,
given how the rule is worded.

Like I said, what we're really debating isn't the just acceptability of
N1-5 N2, but our methodology for making sense of TKD. MO made a rule that
he regularly breaks, and most of us are okay with it. That makes me wonder
if SuStel's *literalist* approach makes sense here.

All I'm saying is that if we're adamant about following a rule that MO
keeps breaking, maybe we should rethink how strict that rule is. But I
admit my proposed solution does not work.


bI'reng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160211/00af8643/attachment.html>