[tlhIngan Hol] two type-5 on a {-bogh} phrase

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Wed Jun 26 23:46:21 PDT 2019


On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 15:25, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 6/26/2019 9:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
>
> Am 26.06.2019 um 14:48 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
>
> Out of curiosity, since I can't think of an example..
>
> Lets say we have a {-bogh} phrase, e.g. {bartIq leghbogh vIghro'}.
>
> Is there a rule which prohibits, one of the nouns having a type-5, e.g.
> {-'e'}, **and** at the same time the other noun having a type-5 too, e.g.
> {-mo'}, {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-vaD} ?
>
>
> I don't know such a rule:
>
> {bartIqDaq bachbogh vIghro'mo' jIHagh.}
>
> Why not?
>
> I think what he means is that the type 5 suffixes apply to the relative
> clause as a whole, not to noun phrases added to the relative clause.
>
> For instance, you can say *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro' jIba'** I sit on
> the branch that the cat sees.* The *-Daq* on the head noun turns the
> entire relative clause into a locative.
>
> What mayqel seems to be asking is whether you could add another type 5 to
> the other noun in the relative clause and also have that apply to the main
> clause. For instance, *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro'mo' jIba'.* I don't
> think this works, because it would make the relative clause, which is a
> noun phrase, have multiple syntactic roles, which is generally forbidden.
>

Not sure if this works or not, but it's not immediately obvious to me why
it doesn't:
qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom.
I will sing an ode of respect for the one who cannot forget KAHLESS.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190627/f9e20922/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list