[tlhIngan Hol] law' puS with the -taHvIS and type-9 clauses preceding each element

[nIqolay Q]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:22 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> While I was writing the initial post, I remembered that we had discussed
> in the past that the {QamvIS Hegh..} was a special case, but my confusion
> came from the fact, that I was under the impression, that its' being "a
> special case" was in reference only to the the {QamvIS} and the {torvIS}
> lacking a {-taH}.
>
> Anyway, good to know that its' being a special case refers to the
> placement of the second {-vIS} clause as well.
>

Technically, there's nothing explicit yet saying that {QamvIS Hegh} is
wrong because of the placement of a {-vIS} verb before a part of a law'/puS
clause (unless SuStel has some insider info). But that grammar has never
been elaborated on and we have no other examples, so it's probably best not
to mess too much with it.

(The fact that TKW explicitly calls out the lack of {-taH} as a deliberate
error but not the placement of the {-vIS} verbs themselves makes me wonder
if it's actually an error, but perhaps MO was folding all the erroneous
usages of {-vIS} into one example.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210209/49509baf/attachment-0015.htm>