On 2/3/2022 10:54 AM, Will Martin wrote:
{-Daq} and other Type 5 suffixed nouns are fine in Relative Clauses or in Main Clauses that have embedded Relative Clauses, so long as the Head Noun doesn’t have the Type 5 suffix with the intent of making that Head Noun other than subject or object of the Relative Clause. That’s the specific “ship in which I fled” problem, a.k.a. the “Cat in the Hat” problem, or the “Elephant in my pajamas” problem.
Well, the "Cat in the Hat" problem and the "elephant in my pajamas" problem are different things than the "ship in which I fled" problem. I know that Krankor used to claim that *mIvDaq yIH* could be used for /cat in the hat,/ allowing for helmets to equal hats and tribbles to equal cats because we had neither /TalkNow!/ nor the word *vIghro'* when he wrote that. But this violates the rule that you can't have a type 5 suffix on the first noun of a noun-noun construction, which this definitely is. So to me, the "Cat in the Hat problem" is this violation of that rule, and the solution is simple: *mIv tuQbogh yIH* (or *mIv tuQbogh vIghro'* for something a little closer to the original). The "elephant in my pajamas" problem is simply one of ambiguity, and it hasn't got anything to do with grammatical errors. Okrand's own example of this (http://klingonska.org/canon/1995-06-holqed-04-2-a.txt) is *DujDaq puq DaqIppu'bogh vIlegh,* which can mean that either the child who hit you on the ship is whom I see or on the ship I see the child who hit you. It's unclear whether the locative belongs to the relative clause or not, but in neither interpretation is the locative being used as the head noun. That's not the issue with "elephant in my pajamas." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name