[tlhIngan Hol] combining {-meH} and {-bogh} on {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed nouns

Will Martin willmartin2 at mac.com
Thu Apr 28 07:12:07 PDT 2022

[Read this for amusement purposes only.]

Another way to think of it is that the word order of {-meH} and {-bogh} are figured out by completely different systems. A verb with {-meH} always precedes the noun or verb it modifies, and the verb with {-meH} paired with its noun grammatically become a noun phrase in a larger grammatical structure. 

A verb with {-bogh} uses the Head Noun as a subject or object, so the Head Noun could come before or after its verb with {-bogh}, and the entire clause belonging to the verb with {-bogh} including the Head Noun behaves like a noun phrase in a larger grammatical structure.

So, consider the canon example you offered:

romuluSngan Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh nejwI’

That’s a noun phrase that would be used in a sentence. What if we were inspired by {ghojmeH taj} and wanted to talk about a boy's version of the Romulan hunter-killer probe?

We’d very naturally nest things into:

romuluSngan Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh ghojmeH nejwI’

Now, the {-meH} clause with it’s noun bundled into it is a noun phrase within the noun phrases of the two {-bogh} clauses, within a larger sentence, like:

vInwI’vaD romuluSngan Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh ghojmeH nejwI’ vIje’ vIneH.

I want to buy a boy’s Romulan hunter-killer probe for my nephew. [Awwwwwww. How cute. This is the version that hunts people down and stings them; great for practical jokes! It’s non-lethal, unless it annoys them to death.]

You wouldn’t want to toss an extra {‘ej} into that because there is no parallel grammatical construction to the {-meH} clause. It would come out something like, “I want to buy a boy’s and Romulan hunter-killer probe.”

You don’t want a hunter-killer probe for a boy and a Romulan. You want the boy version of the probe, which is associated with Romulans, and this boy is not a Romulan, so it would be very, VERY wrong to put that {‘ej} in there, even if it were permitted by the grammar, and it isn’t.


charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

> On Apr 28, 2022, at 8:14 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> SuStel;
>> Relative clauses and purpose clauses work in entirely different ways for entirely
>> different purposes. It's not just a case of saying "Eh, one type 9 suffix is just like every other!"
>> In English, there is a formal, but not always observed, rule that when you conjoin words or phrases,
>> they should be of like kind, such that one could syntactically substitute for the other without
>> change. It's correct to say if I see you and if I recognize you (two conditional clauses), but it's not correct
>> to say if I see you and while I am eating (a conditional clause and a while-clause). It's correct to say
>> apples and pears (two nouns) but not correct to say apples and happy (a noun and an adjective). And so on.
> Ok, now I understand, thanks.
> I thought it was just a matter of substitution one type-9 with
> another. In fact, thinking of this matter, I realized that in Greek
> too we join words/phrases of the same kind. I just hadn't noticed that
> until now.
> -- 
> Dana'an
> https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220428/b624454b/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list