[tlhIngan Hol] {vaj} the english "so" and joining multiple {-bogh} phrases by {vaj}

[SuStel]

On 7/22/2022 10:44 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
> jIH:
> > yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh
> SuStel:
> > That adverbial is trying to pull the disappearing action into a 
> period of time after the sword killed the officer, but
> > you're also trying to use the relative clause to describe the sword 
> that kills the officer. There's nothing ungrammatical
> > about doing this, but you're confusing yourself because you're 
> trying to imagine the sword that disappears
> > in the future being used to kill someone in the past. The ngIq is 
> meant to refer back to the killing, but it's conjoined
> > with the singing. One would be quite justified in reading it this way:
>
> Ok, this is important. As it seems, there's something here I've been 
> ignoring for years.. (Let's remove the {-pu'} to make this simpler).
>
> Up until now, I was under the impression that the *only* thing that 
> {yaS HoH bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh} can mean is "the officer is 
> killed by the sword which sings and then disappears." Meaning that 
> there is a sword which sings and then disappears, and it is that 
> particular sword which kills the officer.
>
> But reading your comments, I understand that this sentence can have 
> another meaning too: "the officer is killed by a sword which sings; 
> and after the killing is done this sword disappears".
>
> Is my understanding correct?

No. You have read this exactly the opposite of how I intended it. When I 
said there was nothing ungrammatical about it, that doesn't mean it says 
what you want it to say. It means that there's nothing wrong with the 
syntax. I don't think the version with *ngIq* has that *ngIq* in a 
sensible place.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220722/5b2ff2cc/attachment-0003.htm>