<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/7/2022 8:42 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de">luis.chaparro@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-325bc52e-8915-497f-a002-ac9d79f78b3c-1641562941061@3c-app-webde-bap22">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I would like to ask two more questions on these subjects:
De'vID:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">From {nIn Hoch} "all [of] the fuel" on p.155 of KGT, we know that {Hoch} following a noun means "all of X".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The meaning "all of X" is not restricted to uncountable nouns, right? So I could also say: *paq Hoch*, meaning *all of the book* or *the entire book / the whole of the book*.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. If we suppose that <b>Hoch</b> following a noun works the
same as <b>HochHom</b> following a noun has been observed to
work, and I do suppose this, then it shouldn't matter whether the
noun is countable or uncountable.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-325bc52e-8915-497f-a002-ac9d79f78b3c-1641562941061@3c-app-webde-bap22">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Me:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
If I understand it right, while the option *(noun noun je) + noun* can't be ambiguous, the opposite *noun + (noun noun je)* could have another interpretation depending on context:
*be' Huch paq je* - the woman's money and book [noun + (noun noun je)]
the woman's money and the book [(noun + noun) noun je]
Am I right? Maybe punctuation could help: *be' Huch, paq je* for the second interpretation?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I recommend <i>always</i> putting commas between <i>every</i>
conjoined noun phrase, even if it's just something like <b>nuH</b><b>,
pegh</b><b> je vIlegh.</b> If it is standard to always use
commas, then the meaning will never be ambiguous. (<b>pegh nuH je
vIlegh.</b> Do I see the secret and the weapon, or do I see the
secret of the weapon? Did I not use a comma because it's just two
simple nouns instead of complex noun phrases, or do I intend a
noun-noun phrase? If commas are standard, this question never
arises.)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-325bc52e-8915-497f-a002-ac9d79f78b3c-1641562941061@3c-app-webde-bap22">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I've also found this canonical example: *quwargh tach Qe' je qoDDaq Hov leng Soj DatIv* (*Enjoy Star Trek themed food and drink at Quark's Bar and Restaurant*). The structure is: [noun + (noun noun je)] + noun. But theoretically, it could also be *at the interior of Quark's Bar and the Restaurant*: [(noun + noun) noun je] + noun. Is that correct?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I feel confident that <b>quwargh tach Qe' je</b> is the name of
the establishment, and is being treated as a single unit. The <b>qoDDaq</b>
is very interesting: I suspect it was included to side-step the
issue of where to put the <b>-Daq</b> on <b>quwargh tach Qe' je.</b>
Do you say <b>quwargh tach Qe' jeDaq?</b> Do you say <b>quwargh
tachDaq Qe'Daq je?</b> By adding the <b>qoD,</b> the problem is
avoided. Nothing in the English suggests any reason to call out
the interior, specifically. I think it was purely a grammatical
trick.</p>
<p>Theoretically, this could mean <i>in the interiors of: Quark's
bar; and the restaurant,</i> as if the bar and the restaurant
are two separate things, the bar being owned by Quark, but that's
clearly not what's intended.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>