Is the {telDaq wovmoHwI'} legal ?
At the BoP poster we have {telDaq wovmoHwI'} for "wing light". Doesn't this violate the rule that in a noun-noun construction only the last can have type-5 suffixes ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 12/4/2016 8:29 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
At the BoP poster we have {telDaq wovmoHwI'} for "wing light".
Doesn't this violate the rule that in a noun-noun construction only the last can have type-5 suffixes ?
Yup. But cue the apologists who claim that it's just an abbreviated sentence with the main verb clipped. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 8:29 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
At the BoP poster we have {telDaq wovmoHwI'} for "wing light".
Doesn't this violate the rule that in a noun-noun construction only the last can have type-5 suffixes ?
It does, if you consider {telDaq} to have a Type 5 noun suffix. It does not, if you consider it to be a compound {tel} "wing" + {Daq} "location", making the phrase "wing-location brightener". Some people try to convince themselves that it isn't a noun-noun construction in the first place, and the rule thus does not apply, but that seems unsupportable to me. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 12/4/2016 11:44 AM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 8:29 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
At the BoP poster we have {telDaq wovmoHwI'} for "wing light".
Doesn't this violate the rule that in a noun-noun construction only the last can have type-5 suffixes ?
It does, if you consider {telDaq} to have a Type 5 noun suffix.
It does not, if you consider it to be a compound {tel} "wing" + {Daq} "location", making the phrase "wing-location brightener".
But then it really behooves you to explain why Okrand didn't just go with *tel wovmoHwI'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
But then it really behooves you to explain why Okrand didn't just go with *tel wovmoHwI'.*
{tel wovmoHwI'} would sound like it was brightening the wing. That's not what wing lights do. There are hull spotlights on the Enterprise (see http://showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/PL_Enterprise_Refit_WIP_1_fi... ), but not on a Bird of Prey.
-- ghunchu'wI'
On 12/4/2016 12:18 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
But then it really behooves you to explain why Okrand didn't just go with *tel wovmoHwI'.*
{tel wovmoHwI'} would sound like it was brightening the wing. That's not what wing lights do. There are hull spotlights on the Enterprise (see http://showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/PL_Enterprise_Refit_WIP_1_fi... ), but not on a Bird of Prey.
/Wing-location lights/ sounds like they're brightening the wing's location. What are wing-location lights? I don't have the poster and I can find no high-resolution images. Are they navigation lights? The possibilities here include: Okrand was thinking /lights on the wings/ and put a type 5 suffix on the first noun, forgetting or ignoring the rule; or Okrand was thinking /wing-location lights,/ which I still don't understand. Let's suppose you have a pistol with lights on it. You want to label them. The word for /pistol/ is *HIch.* The word for /light/ is *wovmoHwI'.* So /pistol lights/ is *HIch wovmoHwI'.* It doesn't mean lights that illuminate a pistol; it's not *(HIch wovmoH)wI'.* But you might want to avoid that ambiguity, so you think, /lights ON a pistol,/ and this leads you to—incorrectly—say **HIchDaq wovmoHwI'.* I'm not saying this is unquestionably what Okrand did. But this particular error happens a lot with students of the language, and Okrand is quite capable of making the same mistake for the same reason. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Here are the important things new students need to know about phrases like {telDaq wovmoHwI'}: 1. They occur in canon. 2. They always seem to happen in titles and labels. 3. People on this list keep proposing rules to fit MO's usage with what's written in TKD, but none have been widely accepted. 3. Everyone agrees they CANNOT be used as a the subject of a sentence. *{cheghta' mIvDaq vIghro'} is WRONG. 4. They cause a lot of controversy on this list, so it's best to avoid using them yourself. Stick to sentences that fit the rule in TKD. bI'reng On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 12:45 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/4/2016 12:18 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
But then it really behooves you to explain why Okrand didn't just go with *tel wovmoHwI'.*
{tel wovmoHwI'} would sound like it was brightening the wing. That's not what wing lights do. There are hull spotlights on the Enterprise (see http://showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/PL_ Enterprise_Refit_WIP_1_files/themotionpicture394.jpg ), but not on a Bird of Prey.
*Wing-location lights* sounds like they're brightening the wing's location. What are wing-location lights? I don't have the poster and I can find no high-resolution images. Are they navigation lights?
The possibilities here include: Okrand was thinking *lights on the wings* and put a type 5 suffix on the first noun, forgetting or ignoring the rule; or Okrand was thinking *wing-location lights,* which I still don't understand.
Let's suppose you have a pistol with lights on it. You want to label them. The word for *pistol* is *HIch.* The word for *light* is *wovmoHwI'.* So *pistol lights* is *HIch wovmoHwI'.* It doesn't mean lights that illuminate a pistol; it's not *(HIch wovmoH)wI'.* But you might want to avoid that ambiguity, so you think, *lights ON a pistol,* and this leads you to—incorrectly—say **HIchDaq wovmoHwI'.*
I'm not saying this is unquestionably what Okrand did. But this particular error happens a lot with students of the language, and Okrand is quite capable of making the same mistake for the same reason.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/5/2016 9:53 AM, Brent Kesler wrote:
Here are the important things new students need to know about phrases like {telDaq wovmoHwI'}:
1. They occur in canon. 2. They always seem to happen in titles and labels. 3. People on this list keep proposing rules to fit MO's usage with what's written in TKD, but none have been widely accepted. 3. Everyone agrees they CANNOT be used as a the subject of a sentence. *{cheghta' mIvDaq vIghro'} is WRONG. 4. They cause a lot of controversy on this list, so it's best to avoid using them yourself. Stick to sentences that fit the rule in TKD.
bIjatlhchu' rIntaH! -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
Brent Kesler -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel