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

[mayqel qunen'oS]

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

I'm glad you hit "send"; qeylIS knows we've argued in the past, and
qeylIS know we'll likely argue in the future too. But I always read
*very* carefully, everything you write, with regard to the grammar of
the language.

jIH:
> 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
SuStel:
> Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la' can only mean
> the doctor whom the commander merely hit.
SuStel:
> qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH
> only the prisoner whom he/she hit
> the prisoner whom he/she merely hit

So, if I understand correctly, the sentence {qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH
ghaH} *can* mean too "only the prisoner whom he/she hit", because the
{qama'e' qIppu'bogh} part of the clause read on its' own, means "the
prisoner who he/she hit". And then, in the complete clause, there is a
{ghaH} following, which does not "conflict" with the implied {ghaH} of
the {qama'e' qIppu'bogh} part of the clause.

But the {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'} can *only* mean "the doctor whom
the commander merely hit", because the {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh} part of the
clause read on its' own would mean {the doctor who he/she hit}, but in
the complete clause {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'} the subject isn't a
"he/she" but the {la'}.

Right ?

~ mayqel qunen'oS