SuStel:
My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as part of a noun- noun construction. In the first two we see an independent time expression* (DaSjaj)* and the question word *ghorgh* each standing alone. In the second two we see a locative noun *(tera'Daq)* and the question word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are no noun-noun constructions here.
So, would you accept the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} examples which I wrote, as being correct ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Dec 2016 4:28 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/16/2016 9:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
but if I write something which doesn't violate a rule, why dismiss it if okrand never used it ? who can argue that okrand has used every possible combination in klingon, so that if what I write doesn't fall into these combinations, then it is wrong ?
There's not violating a rule, and then there's making up a new rule. You're trying to construct a sentence whose grammar doesn't follow from what we've been given, but which does mimic English grammar. This is a strong sign that you're trying to follow the rules of English to construct Klingon sentences.
If you try to make a sentence using a rule you made up, even one which doesn't seem to violate any of Okrand's rules, we're going to demand to see some justification. This is why I tell you, when you ask why can't we say **pawpu' nuq Duj** what ship has arrived?*, that Okrand hasn't created a rule that says *nuq* acts like *which?,* and he's never constructed a sentence that acted that way. Those are the two ways we learn the rules of Klingon: Okrand says "this is a rule," or we deduce the rules from Okrand's examples.
*nuq* goes in the place the answer would occupy. But if it's part of a noun-noun construction it the answer doesn't replace the entire noun-noun. If the answer were *pawpu' 'entepray',* what I've done is replace **nuq Duj**,* not just *nuq,* with the answer. And there's no rule that says we can do that or example of Okrand doing that.
Furthermore, Okrand *has* given us question words next to nouns, but they mean something very different. *nuq* and *'Iv* work like pronouns, and you can say things like *nuq Duj**vetlh** what is that ship?* and *yaSvetlh 'Iv** who is that officer?*
You originally asked,
we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next to nouns ?
for example can we say:
{ghorgh DaSjaj mamej} when do we depart on monday ?
{DaSjaj ghorgh mamej} on monday when do we depart
{nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} where on earth someone finds bears ?
{tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} on earth where someone finds bears ?
My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as part of a noun-noun construction. In the first two we see an independent time expression* (DaSjaj)* and the question word *ghorgh* each standing alone. In the second two we see a locative noun *(tera'Daq)* and the question word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are no noun-noun constructions here.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org