[tlhIngan Hol] {-Daq} and {-bogh} and {Sumbogh} and {Hopbogh}

[mayqel qunen'oS]

Because I caught myself again making the same mistake, trying to write
{HurDaq bIrbogh Ha'DIbaH lulonpu'} for "they abandoned the animal outside
where it's cold", I'll add the following to this thread.

Perhaps my confusion in all this, has to do with me trying to use
constructions like {qa'naDa'Daq Sumbogh 'amerI'qa'}, {HurDaq bIrbogh}, etc
as {-bogh}'ed nouns, and then just adding the {-Daq} wherever I feel
appropriate.

But here's perhaps what I need to remember in order to avoid the
confusion.. In order for a noun to be {-bogh}'ed it needs to be the subject
or object of the jay' {-bogh} phrase.

DujDaq vIleghbogh QuQmey nov tu'lu'
at the ship which I see there are alien engines

'albogh DujDaq yaSpu' qeqmoH HoD
at ship which levitates the captain trains the officers

Both those examples are correct, because the {-Daq} is placed at the
object/subject of the {-bogh} phrase.

But in the original example of {qa'naDa'Daq Sumbogh 'amerI'qa' mIl'oDmey
tu'lu'} the {qa'naDa'} isn't the object of {Sum}. Similarly, in the {HurDaq
bIrbogh Ha'DIbaH lulonpu'} the {Hur} isn't the object of {bIr}. The
{qa'naDa' Sumbogh} isn't a {-bogh}'ed noun, and neither is the {Hur
bIrbogh}, so we can't write {qa'naDa'Daq Sumbogh}/{HurDaq bIrbogh} as if we
had {-bogh}'ed nouns which we simply {-Daq}'ed.

Now.. The sentence of {tawDaq Sumbogh Ha'DIbaH vIlegh} which I wrote
earlier in the thread, is indeed correct (exhibiting the ambiguity which
has already been described). In one interpretation of the sentence we have
a relative clause which includes the {-Daq}, i.e the relative clause of
{tawDaq Sumbogh Ha'DIbaH}. But the important thing to notice (and I'm
talking to myself right now..) is that there's no {-bogh}'ed noun which has
been {-Daq}'ed; the {-bogh}'ed noun is the {Sumbogh Ha'DIbaH} and right
before it, a {tawDaq} just happens to be grazing. And this is the
difference between this sentence and the {DujDaq vIleghbogh QuQmey nov
tu'lu'}/{'albogh DujDaq yaS}, where the {-Daq} is placed on noun which has
been {-bogh}'ed.

Also, in order to be as thorough as possible, I'd like to add that all the
above go even in the case where at {DujDaq vIleghbogh QuQmey nov
tu'lu'}/{'albogh DujDaq yaS} there was a subject/object to the {-bogh}
phrase respectively:

DujDaq luleghbogh yaS QuQmey nov tu'lu'
at the ship which is seen by the officers there are alien engines

nuH 'almoHbogh DujDaq yaSpu' qeqmoH HoD
at the ship which causes the weapon to levitate the captain trains the
officers

Although I'm not sure whether in the sentences above the noun which has
been {-bogh}ed is the {Duj} or the {yaS}/{nuH}, that's not the issue; the
issue is that both those sentences are correct, because the {-Daq} is in a
{-bogh} clause, where *every* noun of that clause is glued together with
that clause's verb in an object/subject relationship.

Again I developed a serious headache writing all this, but hopefully now my
confusion has ended.

--
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220210/99ae73a9/attachment-0015.htm>