[tlhIngan Hol] Apposition on wI'-nouns

[SuStel]

On 2/22/2020 4:03 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
> Am 21.02.2020 um 18:42 schrieb SuStel:
>> The word is /genitive./ The first noun [...]
>>
>> *bIQ bal* /water jug
> [...]
>> Apposition, on the other hand, is where two nouns or noun phrases are
>> side by side, and one further identifies the other.
>
> Okay, I think I understand. But how is the following interpreted then?
>
> We were told the word {wab labwI'} means "radio". We were also told that
> if it was need to distinguish the broadcaster from the device, you may
> add {jan}.
>
> Expanding this, I could probably say {wab labwI' qach}, {wab labwI'
> malja'}, {wab labwI' loD}... etc.
>
> The second part of this nn-construction might be labeled as "identifier".

In linguistics, the correct word for the second noun would be the /head 
noun./


> I may even accept that it's still a genetive construction, BUT why is it
> turned around?
>
> For instance, in {bIQ bal} the identifier comes first: WATER bottle
> instead of "BEER bottle".
>
> In the phrase {wab labwI' jan}, it's not {wab labwI'} identifiying the
> kind of {jan}, it's the {jan} word which is telling you what kind of
> {wab labwI'} you talk about.

You're confusing how Okrand is describing something and the grammar 
behind it. When Okrand says you can distinguish which kind of *wab 
labwI'* by adding a word like *jan,* what he means is you can talk about 
a different head noun to make the distinction. Instead of talking about 
a /transmitter,/ which can be a person or a device the person is using 
(in English, too), you can talk about a /device,/ which is only one 
thing. *wab labwI' jan* is a noun-noun construction in which the 
genitive noun (phrase) is *wab labwI',* and the head noun is *jan.* 
Okrand is not saying you're adding a genitive noun, and you're not; he's 
only giving you a way to clarify that you mean a device instead of a person.


> In addition to thins thought, {wab labwI'}
> CAN stand alone and still mean the same when context is clear.

More specifically, it can stand alone when the speaker doesn't need to 
know whether you're talking about a person sending a signal or the 
device used to send that signal.


> If the
> word {bIQ} stands alone, it is never connected to the idea of a bottle,
> but {bal} is.

Because there is no double possibility as to what *bIQ* means.


> Compare this:
>
> {wab labwI' vIpoQ. wab labwI' jan vIpoQ.}
> I need a radio. I mean, a radio DEVICE.

As opposed to the person who transmitted sounds, who is also a *wab labwI'.*


> {bal vIpoQ. bIQ bal vIpoQ.}
> "I need a bottle. I mean, a WATER bottle"
>
> See the difference?

In the first sentence, you're changing head nouns to make it clear what 
you're talking about. In the second sentence, you're adding a genitive 
noun to clarify the sense of the head noun, but never changing the head 
noun.


> Now this is my serious question:
> Where is the difference? And does it have a name?

These are two completely different grammatical operations, so there is 
no name.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200222/58078f82/attachment-0015.htm>