[88242] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: gha'tlhIq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (R Fenwick)
Fri Sep 3 21:11:18 2010
From: R Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:03:50 +1000
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>The time stamp doesn't work for me. {tujbogh pem nI' po} has the adjective {nI'}
>between two nouns that I would otherwise take to be a noun-noun construction.
>That doesn't work. There can be no words between words in a noun-noun construction.
bIQ ngaS HIvje'lIj, 'ej cha'Hu' 'e' vIjatlh.
I said this two days ago in a less blunt way, but I'll say it again: this claim is
totally unsupported by canon. As far as I can remember Okrand has never made such a
statement explicitly, and the canon texts contain several clear counterexamples.
In addition to the three I noted three days ago:
poH tuj bI'reS ('u' invitation, which ghunchu'wI' has now also pointed out to you)
He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq "beside a travelled route" (S99)
veng wa'DIch Sep "First City region" (KGT 16)
I also just remembered {lo' law' lojmIt} "utility hatch" from BoP, literally "many
uses hatch".
In any case, even if you object to it on stylistic rather than grammatical grounds
a noun-adjectival-noun phrase is not at all ambiguous. Since adjectival verbs in
Klingon can't take objects anyway, there's only one way you can parse a phrase like,
say, {Duj Doq QuQ}.
QeS 'utlh
