[tlhIngan Hol] ghorgh and nuqDaq next to nouns

[mayqel qunenoS]

true. when it comes to noun-noun constructions which utilize {'Iv}/{nuq}
confusion would/could arise.

on the other hand though, I believe that if this confusion is semantical as
opposed to grammatical, then this should pose no problem.

if I say {much vIbejtaHvIS}, what does it mean ? "while I was watching a
movie, the movie, movies, or the movies" ? why do we accept here this
obvious semantic confusion, while at the same time reject noun-noun
constructions which employ {'Iv}/{nuq} ?

why are we willing to accept context, in order to clarify whether the {vI-}
means I-he/she/it as opposed to I-them, while at the same time chopping off
our own nuts by saying "in a noun-noun construction with question words,
confusion could take place".

this is contradictory to say the least.

so, of course, this all comes down to "because maltz said so".. maj. I
don't disagree. but I just can't buy that the problem here would be the
"many possible alternate translations".

finally, I could never understand the argument "okrand never used whatever".

okrand created the language, and while doing so he wrote specific do's and
don't's. for instance he said, you can't have in a SAO after the {'e'} a
type-7 suffix. maj.

but if I write something which doesn't violate a rule, why dismiss it if
okrand never used it ? who can argue that okrand has used every possible
combination in klingon, so that if what I write doesn't fall into these
combinations, then it is wrong ?

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 16 Dec 2016 2:53 pm, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh at wizage.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:31 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> qurgh:
>> > Where is the rule that they can't be part of a
>> > noun-noun construction, I must have missed
>> > it?
>>
>> SuStel wrote this a few days ago, at the "who shall call them from the
>> twilight ?" thread.
>>
> I hadn't read it. Looking back, he merely said it was unknown whether they
> can be used in that way.
>
> TKD says that the "word fits into the sentence in the position that would
> be occupied by the answer". To me this means, if the answer is {tIn SuStel
> Duj}, and the missing information I want is {SuStel}, then the way to ask
> the question would be {tIn 'Iv Duj}. The same would seem to make sense for
> {nuq}. If the answer is {Hab SoSlI' Quch} and the missing information is
> {Quch} then the question would be {Hab SoSlI' nuq?}.
>
> I don't believe this works for every situation though. I found {nuq Dargh
> DaneH} in the archive as an attempt to say "What type of tea do you want?".
> I don't think that works, since the answer to {nuq Dargh DaneH} would be
> something like {Duj Dargh DaneH} - "I want the ship's tea" with {nuq}
> filling the space of the owner/possessor of the tea, not the type/brand of
> tea. For that you probably do need to switch to something like {Dargh Segh
> DaneHbogh yIngu'}.
>
> qurgh
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161216/efd66e55/attachment.htm>