[tlhIngan Hol] ghorgh and nuqDaq next to nouns

[mayqel qunenoS]

SuStel:
> My answer is that in none of these sentences
> do we see question words as part of a noun-
> noun construction. In the first two we see an
> independent time expression* (DaSjaj)* and the
> question word *ghorgh* each standing alone.
> In the second two we see a locative
> noun *(tera'Daq)* and the question
> word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are
> no noun-noun constructions here.

So, would you accept the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} examples which I wrote, as
being correct ?

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 16 Dec 2016 4:28 pm, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 12/16/2016 9:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> 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 ?
>
>
> There's not violating a rule, and then there's making up a new rule.
> You're trying to construct a sentence whose grammar doesn't follow from
> what we've been given, but which does mimic English grammar. This is a
> strong sign that you're trying to follow the rules of English to construct
> Klingon sentences.
>
> If you try to make a sentence using a rule you made up, even one which
> doesn't seem to violate any of Okrand's rules, we're going to demand to see
> some justification. This is why I tell you, when you ask why can't we say **pawpu'
> nuq Duj** what ship has arrived?*, that Okrand hasn't created a rule that
> says *nuq* acts like *which?,* and he's never constructed a sentence that
> acted that way. Those are the two ways we learn the rules of Klingon:
> Okrand says "this is a rule," or we deduce the rules from Okrand's examples.
>
> *nuq* goes in the place the answer would occupy. But if it's part of a
> noun-noun construction it the answer doesn't replace the entire noun-noun.
> If the answer were *pawpu' 'entepray',* what I've done is replace **nuq
> Duj**,* not just *nuq,* with the answer. And there's no rule that says we
> can do that or example of Okrand doing that.
>
> Furthermore, Okrand *has* given us question words next to nouns, but they
> mean something very different. *nuq* and *'Iv* work like pronouns, and
> you can say things like *nuq Duj**vetlh** what is that ship?* and *yaSvetlh
> 'Iv** who is that officer?*
>
> You originally asked,
>
> we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun
> constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next
> to nouns ?
>
> for example can we say:
>
> {ghorgh DaSjaj mamej}
> when do we depart on monday ?
>
> {DaSjaj ghorgh mamej}
> on monday when do we depart
>
> {nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'}
> where on earth someone finds bears ?
>
> {tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'}
> on earth where someone finds bears ?
>
> My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as
> part of a noun-noun construction. In the first two we see an independent
> time expression* (DaSjaj)* and the question word *ghorgh* each standing
> alone. In the second two we see a locative noun *(tera'Daq)* and the
> question word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are no noun-noun
> constructions here.
>
>  --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161216/6c0d4e13/attachment.htm>