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

[Daniel Dadap]

> On Jun 27, 2019, at 08:22, terrence.donnelly <terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> Since when has any suffix besides -'e' been legal on either  noun which is the subject or object of a relative verb? Did Okrand change his statement that he couldn't make it work as anything but subject or object and I missed it?

Huh, I’m new here so I hadn’t been aware that there was a restriction that relative clauses can only act as subjects or objects. I swear I’ve seen counterexamples besides what we’re discussing right now, but they were probably non-canon examples.

> 
>> On 6/27/2019 9:00 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 01:46, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom.
>> Why not {qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'}?
> These mean very different things.
> 

Right, and the version with {qeylISvaD} is the one that matches De'vID’s English sentence. Hence my asking why not {qeylISvaD}.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190627/bf1f904a/attachment-0015.htm>