I would like to ask two more questions on these subjects:

De'vID:
 

From {nIn Hoch} "all [of] the fuel" on p.155 of KGT, we know that {Hoch} following a noun means "all of X".

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*.

Yes. If we suppose that Hoch following a noun works the same as HochHom 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.

Me:

2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples?

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?

I recommend always putting commas between every conjoined noun phrase, even if it's just something like nuH, pegh je vIlegh. If it is standard to always use commas, then the meaning will never be ambiguous. (pegh nuH je vIlegh. 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.)

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?

I feel confident that quwargh tach Qe' je is the name of the establishment, and is being treated as a single unit. The qoDDaq is very interesting: I suspect it was included to side-step the issue of where to put the -Daq on quwargh tach Qe' je. Do you say quwargh tach Qe' jeDaq? Do you say quwargh tachDaq Qe'Daq je? By adding the qoD, 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.

Theoretically, this could mean in the interiors of: Quark's bar; and the restaurant, 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.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name