[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

I openly apologize for becoming confused in a long thread as to who is the author of what, and mistakenly attributing one person’s argument as part of another person’s different argument.

No sense blathering onward as if I had an additional conclusion to make. I’m just apologizing.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Feb 11, 2016, at 3:30 PM, <qov at kli.org> <qov at kli.org> wrote:
> 
>> It would be illegal if it were genitive. You reject the suggestion from several of us that it’s not genitive, so you insist that it is illegal, and since it’s canon, that suggests that the rule should be 
>> eliminated so that the canon then becomes legal.
>> 
>> Your motive appears to be to use the canon as a lever to remove an inconvenient rule. My motive is to accept the rule and use it to interpret the canon, and I don’t see a problem with that 
>> approach. It works. But it doesn’t work for you. I’m suspecting that it doesn’t work for you because it fails to justify tossing out the rule.
> 
> That was someone else, who retracted the idea after consideration of the evidence.
> 
>> For me the question is, “Why do you have a problem with the rule?”'
> 
> As I understand it, he doesn't have a problem with the rule. He has a problem with the canon. He believes that either the canon is in error or the rule has a loophole we don't know about, but it is my understanding from what he has said that his gut says that Okrand made an error with these constructions, and the "otherwise the rule is wrong" part of the argument is just to make us say, "no, of course the rule isn't wrong. Klingon makes no sense in that universe."
> 
>> The canon can easily be interpreted without violating the rule. All you have to do is use the existing grammar to explain the meaning instead of making an interpretation of the meaning force 
>> the grammar to be illegal.
> 
> I satisfied myself that this was what was going on with the {tajDaq ret'aq vIyach} example. 
> 
>> Are you ready to use this “noun phrase” as the subject of a sentence? If not, why not? And if so, why have we never seen anything remotely like it before? It is unprecedented, and this 
>> canon does not provide sufficient president to suggest that this is what we are working with here.
> 
> I think if anyone was willing to consider {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} a noun phrase then we would have a problem.  But no one is. The one person who thought it a possibility backed down at the suggestion that that would make *{Dun QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} legal. No one likes that construction. {QamchIyDaq Dun 'uQ'a'} is of course where the verb goes.  
> 
>> But claiming that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} means "At the Feast (Which Was) at Qam-chee" or something like it is a very thinly stretched justification. WHY would someone chop off the verb?!
> 
> Why bother to write it when it doesn't matter?  I've said before that the implied context of every chapter heading is an implied {... bop lut 'ay'vam}. Which other hypothetical chapter headings would you reject as breaking a rule?
> 
> Dujmo' lot
> loDHom'e'
> ngaghmeH
> ngemDaq
> Qu''a'
> DujDaj SopmeH
> puHvo' Hoq (actually I don't like this one much, because there aren't really obvious sentences that complete the thought. It feels like someone is trying to modify the expedition, not just provide a setting for it.  So if {puHvo' Hoq} comes off exactly the same way as {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} to you, then our difference is not about how we feel about attempting to modify nouns with type-5ed nouns, but in how obvious the truncated sentence is in {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'}.
> HoD, bu', qama'
> may'mo' nu--
> wa', cha', wem
> 
> I agree that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} absolutely does not say "The feast of Kim-chee" as a productive thing.  But the chapter is about a feast {'uQ'a'} and it happens {QamchIyDaq}. If you accept a one-noun chapter heading, what's wrong with a one-noun chapter heading that happens to be backed up with a one noun location?  
> 
> Meh, I didn't mean to write more on this, but I wanted to say that it was clear to me that you weren't trying to tear down the wall that a type-5 creates between nouns.  
> 
> - Qov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160211/36245caf/attachment.html>