tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 22 19:45:29 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mIvDaq yIH
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: mIvDaq yIH
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:44:50 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:
>How about when the phrase is the subject? E.g., {Hoch Soj Sop mIvDaq yIH}
>(The tribble in the helmet ate all the food) or {Duj leghlu'meH Qap telDaq
>wovmoHwI'mey} (Wing lights function to make the ship visible). I'm not
>saying these are legitimate sentences; I don't think they are.
You can't offer ungrammatical sentences as examples. In these cases, I'd be
expecting a verb, in the same way as I would with the lone noun "phrases":
{Hoch Soj Sop mIvDaq yIH (tu'lu'bogh)}
{Duj leghlu'meH Qap telDaq wovmoHwI'mey (lutu'lu'bogh)}
>I'm just offering a case where the locative noun can't be considered a
>sentence
>modifier due to its location.
In these cases, the noun plus {-Daq} would still not be a noun modifier.
Instead, it would be the modifier of the hypothetical elided verb, and thus
a "sentence" modifier (even though a verb plus {-bogh} isn't strictly a
sentence, but a relative clause). Again, if the case you propose isn't
grammatical, then you can't put it forward as part of this argument.
I like to think of a noun-noun construction this way: The first noun
actually already has a Type 5 suffix - a null suffix: -(0). If a noun
already has this type 5 suffix - for instance, {tel-(0) wovmoHwI'} "wing's
light" - you can't add another Type 5 suffix, any more than you can say
*{vIleghpu'taH} or *{Sor'a'oy}. So {mIvDaq} and {yIH} aren't parts of a
noun-noun construction, but two grammatically unlinked nouns that just
happen to be next to each other.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail