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

[SuStel]

On 10/19/2017 12:29 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     I have no problem with this either, and I don't find it jarring.
>     TKD tells us that when you construct a relative clause, that
>     clause with its head noun is treated as if it were itself just a
>     noun. If *qay'bogh ghu'* is /*foo,*/ then *wej /foo/ *is
>     completely legal.
>
>     How many *qay'bogh ghu'* do you have? *wej qay'bogh ghu'.*
>
> It makes sense grammatically. But as a stylistic thing, it feels to me 
> like there's more potential for confusion when splitting the words 
> apart like that.

Forget *wej,* then. *chorgh qay'bogh ghu'*/eight problematical 
situations./ There is no other possible interpretation there.

How about a *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'*/Romulan 
hunter-killer probe /(KCD)? It is explicitly NOT a probe that hunts and 
kills Romulans; it is a probe of Romulan manufacture that hunts and 
kills. That's some canon evidence of using a relative clause as the 
second noun of a noun-noun construction. Your aesthetic sense would make 
you say *Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh romuluSngan nejwI',* but that's not what we 
get.

It's all about scope. A *Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh **romuluSngan nejwI'* is a 
"Romulan probe" that "hunts and kills." Of all Romulan probes, this is 
the kind that hunts and kills. A *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh 
nejwI'* is a Romulan "probe that hunts and kills." Of all hunter-killer 
probes, this is the Romulan kind.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171019/5be006fc/attachment-0016.htm>