[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[SuStel]

On 2/12/2016 8:15 AM, De'vID wrote:
> 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--

No, the meaning is quite clear. That it HAS the meaning it has is the 
source of the problem. "The feast." Which feast? The one "at Qam-chee." 
The grammar used doesn't support the meaning, unless there are rules we 
don't know about.

> Here, again, there is the difference between the descriptivist and
> prescriptivist approaches. Clearly, the phrase isn't meaningless.
> Everyone understands it.

This problem is not a disagreement between descriptivists and 
prescriptivists. One side says a rule has been broken, the other side 
says no rule has been broken.

> bI'reng:
>> MO made a rule that he regularly breaks, and most of us are okay with it.

"Regularly" is too strong a word for this. He's done it a couple of times.

> It hasn't been established that he's broken any rules. There are
> exactly two apparent exceptions, one of which is a chapter title, and
> one of which is a label. Most people seem to be comfortable with the
> fact that chapter titles and labels on diagrams don't have to exactly
> follow the grammar described in TKD.

Allowing a syntactic marker on the first noun of a noun-noun 
construction would be not exactly following the grammar described in 
TKD. That was the theory I put forth in my original post. But it remains 
unproven, and I'm not ready to start using it as the basis for original 
Klingon expression as some others here apparently are.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name