tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 07 17:14:13 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: joj usage...

De'vID jonwI' ([email protected]) 

Voragh:
>>   quwargh tach Qe' je qoDDaq Hov leng Soj DatIv
>>   Enjoy Star Trek themed food and drink at Quark's Bar and Restaurant. 
>>STX
>>
>>Note {tach Qe' je} is the second or "possessed" noun phrase of a noun+noun
>>construction, which itself forms part of a larger noun-phrase+noun
>>construction with the noun {qoD} "inside, interior":  "at Quark's
>>bar-and-restaurant's inside".

SuStel:
>I agree with you, but it's also possible that {quwargh tach Qe' je} is a
>proper noun (as it is in the English).  Okrand used {qep'a' wejDIchDaq}
>once, which has caused discussion as to whether you can put Type 5 noun
>suffixes on ordinals, or if this {qep'a' wejDIch} is a proper noun and
>treated specially.

The presence of <qoD> struck me as odd and I wondered what it was
doing there.  Without <qoD>, one would have the following choices:

1) <{quwargh tach Qe' je}Daq>
2) <quwargh tachDaq Qe'Daq je>

In scenario 1, <quwargh tach Qe' je> is a proper noun, in which
case you should be able to tack <-Daq> on directly.  The result
might be ugly, but (I think) it would be grammatical.  Of course
it might also have led to all sorts of discussions about whether
you can stick a noun suffix onto a conjunction.

In scenario 2, <quwargh tach Qe' je> is a description, i.e.
"Quark's bar and (his) restaurant".  So there's nothing wrong
with sticking <-Daq> onto each of <tach> and <Qe'>.

That MO didn't stick <-Daq> directly on to each of <tach> and
<Qe'> leads me to suspect that <quwargh tach Qe' je> is a proper
noun that could not be broken up.  The addition of <qoD> seems
to be a way for MO to avoid having to put <-Daq> directly on
the last word of the noun phrase, <je>, which is a conjunction.
The evidence suggests to me that SuStel's conjecture that
<quwargh tach Qe' je> is a proper noun is correct.

So it seems that there's no evidence that a noun phrase comprising
a list of nouns followed by <je> can form the first noun of a
noun-noun construction.  But on the other hand, unlike other words
of its class (such as <bIng> or <Dung>), I can't see how <joj> can
be used unless it's preceded by (at least) two nouns.

--
De'vID

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Back to archive top level