[tlhIngan Hol] X which are not Y

[Christa Hansberry]

So I guess it's a matter of whether -'e' can be in a relative clause.

-QISta'

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 10:04 Christa Hansberry <chransberry at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/ab97379a/attachment-0015.htm>