[tlhIngan Hol] X which are not Y

[Christa Hansberry]

Well, the X [pronoun] Y'e' construction seems somewhat different from the
normal object-verb-subject... always explained like "as for Y, it is X." So
it didn't seem like that should work.

Facial expression and tone would probably be very significant in the "'ach
yIH..." scenario.

-QISta'

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 09:52 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 3/22/2019 11:47 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how
>> would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be
>> grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
>>
>
> Why wouldn't it be grammatical? Pronouns-as-copula can take *-be'*: *loD
> Quch jIHbe'.* They can take *-bogh*: paq'batlh has *ghaHtaHbogh*. *yIHmey
> bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e'* seems completely fine to me.
>
> Note that the *-'e'* is not optional here.
>
> Not only is it grammatical, but I don't see any reason not to say it
> either, if it best expresses what you mean.
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190322/2d8b2198/attachment-0015.htm>