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

Will Martin willmartin2 at mac.com
Wed Mar 4 06:26:52 PST 2020


Just to explain all this in more elemental terms, {neH} (besides acting as a verb in a normal sentence, or the special case of its role as the second verb in a Sentence As Object) can follow a noun (meaning “only”) or it can follow a verb (meaning “merely”). It can’t “follow” an implied subject pronoun suggested by a verb prefix and mean “only".

This is true in any clause, be it relative, main, or any dependent clause. In all cases, if you want “only”, it has to follow an actual noun or pronoun (acting as a noun).

So much for adding clarity… [Don’t hit “send”, charghwI’. Just don’t hit “send”…]

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Mar 4, 2020, at 9:15 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 3/4/2020 8:47 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 
>> 
>> Couldn't this mean too "the prisoner who has been hit by only he/she/they/it" ? i.e. can't the {neH} be interpreted as acting on the elided subject ?
> No. You have to have a word there to put neH after it.
> 
> 
> 
>> SuStel:
>> > qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH
>> > only the prisoner whom he/she hit
>> > the prisoner whom he/she merely hit 
>> 
>> If instead of the {ghaH} we had as a subject not a pronoun, but a noun, would this change anything ?
>> 
>> For example would the following be correct ?
>> 
>> Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'
>> only the doctor who has been hit by the commander
>> the doctor who has been merely hit by the commander 
>> 
>> Perhaps it's a silly question, but something confuses me in the sentences where the subject is a pronoun.
> When a noun is part of a relative clause, you can't apply neH to only part of the relative clause. You can apply neH to just one noun in the relative clause, but not one noun and the verb if there is another noun in the clause. It's all or nothing.
> 
> In Qel'e' qIpta'bogh la', the relative clause is the whole thing, not just Qel'e' qIpta'bogh. If you've got Qel'e' qIpta'bogh la', you can't apply a neH only to the Qel'e' qIpta'bogh part, because la' is part of the clause.
> 
> But if you have the relative clause Qel'e' qIpta'bogh, you CAN apply a neH to it, because that's the entire relative clause.
> 
> Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la' can only mean the doctor whom the commander merely hit. The neH cannot apply to the relative clause Qel'e' qIpta'bogh, because that relative clause does not appear here; the clause is all of Qel'e' qIpta'bogh la'. A neH could apply to the Qel'e', the qIpta'bogh, the la', or the Qel'e' qIpta'bogh la', but not just PART of the relative clause.
> 
> If you want only the doctor whom the commander hit, it's Qel'e' neH qIpta'bogh la'.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://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/20200304/7806cb34/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list