tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 19 09:04:38 2014

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] 'arDaq

SuStel ([email protected])



On 6/18/2014 11:38 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
SuStel:
There is no such rule that I'm aware of. You can't have a type 5
noun suffix on the first noun of a noun-noun construction, but
there's no rule about it migrating.

lojmitti7wi7nuv:
This is an odd rule since it's non-trivial trying to come up with an
example where you'd be tempted to put the Type 5 on the first noun.
Maybe I've just been following this rule so long that I can't think of
a reason to want to break it...

SuStel:
Krankor has been known to break this rule with his {mIvDaq yIH} "tribble
in a helmet" (i.e., cat in the hat). Okrand also breaks the rule on the
Bird of Prey poster, though I can't recall the exact phrases. I've seen
lots of people on this list break the rule in the same way, so it's not
non-trivial.[]

FYI, examples of {-Daq} in the BOP Poster:

[...]

   telDaq wovmoHwI'mey
   Wing Lights

This is the only one that actually violates the N-N rule.

It occurs to me that the grammar of brief labels, chapter headings,
isolated phrases, etc. may be different than that of full sentences and,
especially, connected literary prose. Perhaps more a difference of style.

Possibly, but I think it unlikely; I'd need to see a lot more and better examples before I entertained that notion seriously.

This one seems to actually go out of its way to violate the rule (says the guy who just split an infinitive in this very sentence without batting an eye). A direct translation of the English would have been {tel wovwI'mey} "wing lights." The {-Daq} is not only—apparently—ungrammatical, it's also completely unnecessary.

--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol


Back to archive top level