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