[tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh

[mayqel qunenoS]

however, if De'vID's analysis (that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun) is
correct, then this raises the question:

why at the tkd we have {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} instead of {naDev
jIHtaHbogh vISovbe'} ?

Unless of course, the rule could be assumed, that in {-bogh}ed locatives,
the locative can either follow or precede the {-bogh}.

But whatever the case, this is all speculative thus unable to be accepted
and put to practice.

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 18 Dec 2016 3:08 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree. Obviously there is grammar here, which we don't yet know. Because
> of this reason, attempts to analyze sentences like the aforementioned one
> are futile.
>
> let alone draw conclusions, which we could employ in our daily writing.
> Obviously this is another {ngIq} case..
>
> qunnoH jan puqloD
> ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
>
> On 18 Dec 2016 2:55 pm, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
>> On 12/18/2016 6:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>
>> When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the
>> only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the
>> object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation
>> could only be "the here which I am being".
>>
>>
>> Unless "to be" sentences don't follow the usual rules of having subjects
>> and objects per se. What, for instance, is the subject of *tlhIngan ghaH*?
>> And if it's *gha**H,* then what's the verb? And if there is no verb,
>> then what's the *ghaH* doing in *tlhIngan ghaH yaS'e'*?
>>
>> --
>> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161218/dfe30237/attachment-0017.htm>