I'm not aware of any such rule. Perhaps the confusion is with the rule that you can't put a Type-5 noun suffix on any non-final noun in a noun compound? There is at least one canonical example of a locative -Daq nested within another: {tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq 'oH toQDuj chenmoHlu'meH Daq wa'DIch'e'.} "1st Construction Site: The Kling District, Klingon Home World" Source: Klingon BoP poster http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-11-01-bop.txt {tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq} probably isn't seen as one 4-noun compound that forms a single locative, but rather two 2-noun compounds forming two locatives, one of which is more specific than the other. (Granted, this poster also violates the rule mentioned above, by describing "wing lights" as {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey}. That might be explained as a shorthand used for labeling purposes, though.) //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 1:02:39 PM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: tIng kechpaja:
Didn't we decide a while back that you couldn't do that, though? Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I remember there being a whole argument about how you couldn't have two nouns with {- Daq} in a row.
Wow.. Hold on there. Who the jay' said that and based on what Ca'Non? Who said I can't say {'elaDya'Daq bIQ'a' vengDaq jIHtaH} for "I'm at Greece at a sea city"? ~ Dana'an lIloS bep scribes pharisees je QaqwI'pu'