On 6/18/2014 2:46 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
With something like {mIvDaq yIH} sitting on its own, I see it as the
beginning of {mIvDaq yIH vIlegh}, which I'm okay as interpreting as
me not being in the hat too, thanks to <pa'vo' pagh leghlu'> (the
room has no view) from the tapes. I'm happy with a sentence fragment
being used as a standalone title. I would reject *{muSuch mIvDaq
yIH}.
Likewise {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey} could be expanded to {telDaq
wovmoHwI'mey lujomlu'} and it seems perfectly reasonable to omit the
verb. luch jomlu'bogh bopmo' Doch naQ.
This is the usual defense for these phrases, but I don't buy it. You COULD expand such phrases, but that's not what their writers/utterers meant. I'm sure, for instance, that Krankor simply forgot about the rule, and that he would accept *{muSuch mIvDaq yIH}. If you subsequently pointed out the rule, he'd say it was a stupid rule, and would continue violating it.
I think any canonical examples of N-5 N are either errors, exceptions, or a special grammar we haven't discovered, as Voragh suggested. I don't think they're sentences that happen to have been cut off at exactly the right moment that they completely coincidentally look exactly like an original English noun–prepositional phrase.
-- SuStel http://www.trimboli.name/ _______________________________________________ Tlhingan-hol mailing list [email protected] http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol