[111351] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] poS and nIH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sun Oct 1 13:15:58 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 09:38:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6471f373-b035-6e34-ae77-9ebeeb3ea4b9@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3946412690468396022==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------272F4D27C492478D219B13A5"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------272F4D27C492478D219B13A5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/1/2017 9:34 AM, SuStel wrote:
> On 10/1/2017 9:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>> The source of my confusion, has been the fact that {poS} and {leQ}
>> are locatives, as for instance {bIng}, {Dung} etc.
>>
>> Locatives aren't always to be placed second in a noun-noun construction ?
>
> None of those are locatives. They describe locations, but they are not
> inherently locative as *naDev, pa', vogh,* and *Dat* are. Only those
> four words are known to be inherently locative.
>
Also, technically speaking, the rule is that you can't put a type 5
suffix on the first noun of the noun-noun construction, not that the
first noun can't be locative. I have no idea whether one of the
inherently locative nouns are allowed to be the first noun, but it
doesn't break any stated rule we have.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------272F4D27C492478D219B13A5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/1/2017 9:34 AM, SuStel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6471f373-b035-6e34-ae77-9ebeeb3ea4b9@trimboli.name">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/1/2017 9:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cL4VYk6mUF5zAtJXLq9F6oL0VSz672oHHX-X9fn=ibC-A@mail.gmail.com">The
source of my confusion, has been the fact that {poS} and {leQ}
are locatives, as for instance {bIng}, {Dung} etc.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Locatives aren't always to be placed second in a
noun-noun construction ?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>None of those are locatives. They describe locations, but they
are not inherently locative as <b>naDev, pa', vogh,</b> and <b>Dat</b>
are. Only those four words are known to be inherently locative.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also, technically speaking, the rule is that you can't put a type
5 suffix on the first noun of the noun-noun construction, not that
the first noun can't be locative. I have no idea whether one of
the inherently locative nouns are allowed to be the first noun,
but it doesn't break any stated rule we have.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------272F4D27C492478D219B13A5--
--===============3946412690468396022==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============3946412690468396022==--
