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

[SuStel]

On 10/19/2017 11:17 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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'*.

I see no problem at all with *ghu' qay'.*


> 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.

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'.*

mayqel is once again probing the limits of noun ordering and scopes, and 
the answer here is the same as always: we don't have enough data to answer.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171019/807dd826/attachment-0011.htm>