[tlhIngan Hol] {neH} and {-bogh}ed nouns

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Mon Mar 2 06:00:29 PST 2020


On 3/2/2020 8:48 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
> > qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH
> > the prisoner(s) whom he/she/it(/they)
> > merely hit
> > only the prisoner(s) whom
> > he/she/it(/they) hit
>
> If instead of the {qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH} we had {qama''e' 
> qIplu'pu'bogh neH}, I could understand that the possible translations 
> would be "the prisoner(s) who someone merely hit" and "only the 
> prisoner(s) who someone hit", because there is no subject.
>
> But when there is an elided subject, then don't we have the same 
> restrictions which we would have, as when there was a subject not 
> elided but specified ?
>
> Meaning, that in the case of an elided subject in a {-bogh} clause, 
> where its' object carries the {-'e'}, wouldn't we have as the only 
> possible translation the "merely" translation, instead of the "only" ?

When you add the explicit pronoun, are you putting the *neH* before it 
or after it? That completely changes the meaning.

*qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH neH
*/the prisoner whom only he/she hit/

*qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH
*/only the prisoner whom he/she hit
the prisoner whom he/she merely hit/

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200302/28b43fbf/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list