[110497] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Reversing the order of {-vo'}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Thu Aug 10 13:09:45 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <cf86e215-2e3a-e85d-5c86-dcc72ed716ac@trimboli.name>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:09:39 +0200
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
On 10 August 2017 at 18:13, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 11:43 AM, De'vID wrote:
> 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.
Point taken. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
Would you accept a chain of {-Daq}s and {-vo'}s like this?
{Qo'noSvo' vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh}
{tera'vo' DIvI' ra'ghom qachvo' vaS'a'vo' chegh}
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
