[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[SuStel]

On 2/12/2016 8:52 AM, De'vID wrote:
> SuStel:
>> It all comes down to what Okrand meant, of course. If he meant to
>> distinguish the feast as being one that takes place at Qam-chee, then I'm
>> right. If he meant to say that Qam-chee is a location that is only telling
>> you where the chapter takes place, not the feast, then the chorus is right.
>
> I don't think anyone in the chorus is saying that Qam-chee is only the
> location of the chapter, but not of the feast. AFAICT, everyone agrees
> that the {'uQ'a'} takes place {QamchIyDaq}.
>
> The difference is only that others are willing to accept that
> {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'}, as a chapter title, may be taking a grammatical
> shortcut and isn't a noun-noun construction. You insist that it must
> be a noun-noun construction because the relationship between the nouns
> is genitive. But this is affirming the consequent: even if a noun-noun
> construction expresses a genitive relationship, it does not follow
> that everything which looks like it might be a genitive relationship
> is necessarily a noun-noun construction.

That is correct. But if the purpose of {QamchIyDaq} in the title is to 
identify that the feast is taking place in Qam-chee, then that is a 
genitive meaning, whether it's a noun-noun or not. Given that the 
original English title uses the preposition "at Qam-chee" to identify 
which feast we're talking about, can you not see the thinking that might 
lead someone, who had forgotten about the type-5 rule, to do exactly the 
same thing in Klingon: identify what feast he was talking about? TKD 
even says that "In other instances, English indicates the function of 
nouns in a sentence by adding words, particularly prepositions," and 
then goes on immediately to describe {-Daq}.

In English, the preposition "at Qam-chee" directly modifies "the feast" 
to tell us which feast we're talking about.

In Klingon, {QamchIyDaq} means "at Qam-chee." Someone who understands 
that the noun-noun construction allows the first noun to modify the 
second noun, but who has forgotten that the first noun can't be 
inflected for syntax, would very naturally think of using {QamchIyDaq} 
to directly modify {'uQ'a'} to tell us which {'uQ'a'} we're talking about.

> SuStel:
>> Likewise, if he meant to distinguish the lights as being the ones that are
>> installed in the wings, them I'm right. If he meant that the reader is to
>> look at the wings, where he'll see some lights, then the chorus is right.
>
> Again: there's no substantive difference in meaning between what you
> assert and what everyone else asserts. We all agree that the label is
> for lights installed in the wings.
>
> Other labels on the poster also take similar grammatical shortcuts:
> {nISwI' talmey: cha' (telDaq lujomlu')}

There is no indication that any other titles in paq'batlh take 
grammatical shortcuts, and there is a statement by Okrand that the 
translation is formal, not conversational. I won't assume any 
grammatical shortcuts that go beyond eliding pronouns and the prefix 
trick, neither of which have ever been described as being informal or 
used only in particular situations.

> What's the grammatical relationship between {nISwI' talmey} and {cha'}
> here? According to TKD, "Numbers used as modifiers precede the noun
> they modify." If we're going to be that literal, then what you have in
> that label is the noun construction {nISwI' talmey} and the number
> {cha'}, with no grammatical relationship between them.

The relationship between {cha'} and {nISwI' talmey} is given by the 
colon. "A colon precedes an explanation, or an enumeration or list." 
(Wikipedia)

> In reality, everyone understands that "disruptor cannon(s): 2" means
> there are two disruptor cannons, and "on the wing: lights" means
> there are lights installed on/in the wings.

Interesting how they're not simply *{telDaq nISwI' talmey}, but this 
time Okrand felt he had to specify that supposedly missing verb: {telDaq 
lujomlu'}. And he DIDN'T say {telDaq nISwI' talmey lujomlu'}. Very 
interesting indeed. Why do you think that is?

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name