[tlhIngan Hol] verbs with {-bogh} and numbers

[nIqolay Q]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> Lets say I write:
>
> {qay'bogh ghu'}
> a situation which is a problem
>
> I can also write:
> {qay'bogh cha' ghu'}
> two situations which are problem
>
> But can I also write:
> {wej qay'bogh ghu'}
> three situations which are problem ?
>

1) The gloss for *qay'* is "be a problem, be a hassle". The use of "be" in
the gloss suggests it might be intended as a stative verb, though I don't
think it's ever been used either adjectivially or with a *-bogh* so I can't
say for sure. So you can probably just get away with *ghu' qay'*. (My usual
assumption is that a verb which has a "be" gloss can be used statively. I'm
not sure about words like *vIH* "move, be in motion" or *wal* "vibrate, be
in a state of vibration", in which the "be" gloss might simply be there to
clarify the intransitivity of the earlier non-"be" gloss.)

2) *wej qay'bogh ghu'* feels wrong to me. Are there examples where an N-N
construction or a number-N phrase is interrupted by an intervening *-bogh*
clause, *A (Vbogh B)*? In this case, *qay'* isn't transitive, so it's not
likely someone would get confused and interpret the *wej* as an object. But
splitting the construction like that feels... awkward. It might not be
strictly ungrammatical (or it might be) but stylistically it's kind of
jarring.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171019/1a75666b/attachment-0016.htm>