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

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Thu Aug 10 10:09:39 PDT 2017

On 10 August 2017 at 18:13, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 11:43 AM, De'vID wrote:
> 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.

Point taken. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.

Would you accept a chain of {-Daq}s and {-vo'}s like this?

{Qo'noSvo' vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh}
{tera'vo' DIvI' ra'ghom qachvo' vaS'a'vo' chegh}


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list