[87188] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed Nov 25 21:27:33 2009
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:51:24 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <a1173fff0911251740k7b216e4ag2aeaf03d1eadb6a8@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Christopher Doty wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 17:25, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>>> I am also convinced that Okrand simply forgot that the rules in TKD
>>>> forbid this sort of thing.
>>> Can you tell me what rule this is? I'm still not following. I know
>>> that there is a rule that suffixes can't go on the first noun in a N-N
>>> construction, but I haven't seen a rule that says all noun-noun
>>> sequences are automatically noun-noun constructions...
>> If a sequence of nouns is not a noun-noun construction, what is it? What
>> roles do those nouns play in the sentence? The earlier nouns can't be
>> modifying the later nouns, because that's a noun-noun construction.
>> Nouns with syntactic markers or timestamp nouns might sit next to each
>> other, but all of those apply to the *verb*, not the other nouns.
>
> Ah ha! I finally see what you are saying, I think. Namely, that in
> <yIHvaD may'>, <yIHvaD> must modify <may'> to get the reading I
> intend, but it also can't if it's in a n-n phrase, because then the
> first word doesn't take a suffix. Is this the issue you're seeing?
> If so, let me know and I'll address it specifically instead of going
> into detail about all of the other stuff in this email. I think we've
> been talking past each other a bit if this is the issue.
Yes! That's it exactly.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
