[tlhIngan Hol] Reversing the order of {-vo'}

[Lieven]

Am 10.08.2017 um 18:13 schrieb SuStel:
> You wrote:
> 
>     *[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh**
>     **[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh*
> 
> Your brackets show locatives and froms affecting entire phrases that 
> include other locatives or froms. This is exactly what the noun-noun 
> restriction prohibits. You can't say this any more than you can say 
> *mIvDaq yIHvo'*//to mean /from the tribble [that is] in the helmet./ The 
> phrase **mIvDaq yIH* itself is illegal. A syntactic noun cannot be the 
> genitive to a head noun. At best, *mIvDaq yIHvo'* can mean /in the 
> helmet, from the tribble,/ but there is absolutely no connection (no 
> genitive relationship) between the tribble and the helmet. The two words 
> might happen to sit next to each other in a larger sentence, but they 
> have no direct relationship.

I agree with SuStel. (I really do)

There is this canon example {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaH} which really is a 
list of adverbials, not a noun-noun construction. You may split it:
{naDevvo' majaH} 'ej {vaS'a'Daq majaH}.

I think one may even say that the one locative refers to the following 
sentence:

{naDevvo' [vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH]}

or with SuStel's cat:
{mIvDaq [yIHvo' jIghoS]} - It means "In the hat, I go away from the cat" 
but not "I go away from the [cat-in-the-hat]"

What your mistake was, is using multiple {-Daq} in the sense of "in/at"
{tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'} "from [Hall in [house in earth]]"

-- 
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
http://www.klingonwiki.net