[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[David Holt]

jatlh bI'reng:


> 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.

It has been a long time now (in terms of this discussion) since anyone has added anything new.  I just hear SuStel repeating his stance that any sort of genitive relationship means a rule has been broken.  He's very adamant about that.  And I hear others (including myself) saying that they are OK with the locative being applied to a noun in the absence of a verb.  We are very adamant about that.  I think there are no further objective points to be made.  All we can do is try to impress on each other the earnestness of our subjective opinions.

> 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.

I think, rather, that most of us feel this phrase is not breaking any rules because a structure exists that it fits into without breaking any of the rules.  We are not okay with Dr. Okrand breaking the rules, but in this case some of us see a locative as being able to modify a noun in the absence of a verb even though that looks genitive and so might otherwise be handled as a noun-noun construction (where it would be breaking the rules).

> 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.

Perhaps we have approached that sort of situation that way in the past, but I believe it is not necessary this time.  I do not believe he is breaking a rule about noun-noun constructions, but rather stretching the rule for how locatives apply.

Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160212/ff515b98/attachment.html>