[tlhIngan Hol] indefinite subject of a -lu' bogh clause being the subject of a verb

[Will Martin]

In complete agreement with SuStel, I’ll just add that the reason it doesn’t work is that you need a “head noun” which can function within both the relative clause and the main clause. It’s the word that links the two. The relative clause describes or specifies the noun, while the same noun also functions in the main clause.

{vay’} works as an unspecified entity, but it also is a noun. {-lu’} in the relative clause doesn’t give you a noun to exist in the main clause.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Nov 16, 2020, at 9:54 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 11/16/2020 9:48 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> jIqon:
>> 
>> Qob 'etlh raQlu'bogh
>> 
>> DuH wa':
>> "the sword which someone wields is dangerous".
>> 
>> maj..
>> 
>> 'a DuH veb tu'lu''a' je ?
>> 
>> "someone unspecified who wields the sword is dangerous"
>> 
>> mu'tlhegh wot SeSor 'oHlaH'a' je {-lu'bogh} mutlheghHom SeSor'e' ?
> No, you can't do that. If you must try it, use an explicit subject, vay'.
> 
> -- 
> 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/20201116/9a7f56fc/attachment-0003.htm>