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

[SuStel]

On 3/4/2020 10:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> 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.

NO! You can't split apart a relative clause in order to apply a *neH* to 
just part of it. There is only one *ghaH* here; there cannot be an 
implied *ghaH* in addition to the existing one. Aside from the fact that 
the phrase wouldn't make sense /(the prisoner whom he hit he),/ you 
can't have a noun-noun construction when the first noun of the 
construction has a type 5 suffix. Your relative clause can't act as the 
first noun of a noun-noun construction with *ghaH,* because it's got an 
*-'e'* on it.

There is no noun-noun construction here. There is only a relative clause.

*qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH* can ONLY mean /the prisoner(s) whom the 
he/she merely hit./


> 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'}.

For exactly the same reason as above, *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'* can 
ONLY mean /the doctor(s) whom the commander(s) merely hit./

Do NOT pull apart a relative clause in the way you're doing. Put 
brackets around the entire clause. You can apply *neH* to a single word, 
or you can apply it to the entire clause, but you can't apply it to part 
of the clause.

*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH]
*The entire phrase is the relative clause. Here are the allowed 
interpretations:

*[qama''e' neH qIppu'bogh ghaH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word /qama'.
/*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word 
/qIppu'bogh./ It does NOT apply to the clause fragment /qama''e' qIppu'bogh.
/*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH neH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word /ghaH.
/*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH] neH.*/neH/ is applied to the entire 
relative clause.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200304/2fc915cb/attachment-0015.htm>