[tlhIngan Hol] doubly {-meH}ed nouns

[SuStel]

On 5/14/2019 1:43 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> Interesting.. I hadn't thought of that possibility..
>
> However, although I wouldn't do it while writing somewhere, where I 
> wouldn't be providing the english translation too, here is how I would 
> understand it..
>
> The {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, I would understand it as {tIQbogh 
> (qotlhbogh vIghro')}, i.e. "cat which tickles which is ancient".
>
> The {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, I would understand it as {qeqmeH (langmeH 
> mIw)}, i.e. "thinning process in order to train".
>
> I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, could be read too 
> as, {(tIQbogh qotlhbogh) vIghro'}, although I can't *feel* any actual 
> difference between them.

While nothing in the given rules prohibits {Xbogh {Ybogh Z}} or {XmeH 
{YmeH Z}}, we've never seen anything like them.

I don't see any way these could be interpreted as {{Xbogh Ybogh} Z} or 
{{XmeH YmeH} Z}.


> I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'} could also mean 
> {tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro'}; although I can't *feel* any actual 
> difference between them.

The only semantic difference I see is in scoping: in *tIQbogh qotlhbogh 
vIghro'* the tickling is more closely associated with the cat than the 
being ancient. In *tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro'* the tickling and the 
being ancient are equally applicable to the cat.


> And qeylIS knows I wonder, whether the {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, could 
> also mean {qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw}, which *is* indeed quite different..

In both cases just stick with the one with the conjunction.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190514/9f1b4c07/attachment-0016.htm>