[tlhIngan Hol] joining multible {-bogh} phrases by {je}

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Jun 10 08:01:02 PDT 2022

On 6/10/2022 10:43 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
> So, the thing I understand from this thread is that in a string of 
> {-bogh}s, the noun should be added after the first {-bogh}.

The thing you should understand from this thread is that in a series of 
verbs with a common object or subject, if the object or subject is 
repeated it's usually the second and later ones that are dropped, not 
the first one.

It doesn't matter whether the verbs have *-bogh* or *-chugh* or *-DI'* 
or nothing at all (independent clauses). They're all treated the same.

This is almost universally true. Verbs with subordinate clause markers 
on them are just like verbs without subordinate clause markers, except 
their role is subordinated to another verb.

> I'll regard the {romuluSngan Sambogh and HoHbogh nejwI'} a 
> special-because-matlh-said-so case.

You should regard it as an illustration that this isn't an exact formula 
to follow strictly, that there are times when it makes sense to deviate 
from the norm. In this case, the deviation probably occurs because the 
author is trying to make /finding/ and /killing/ closely tied together. 
It's not that the probe happens to find and happens to kill and does 
these things separately. Its function is finding-and-killing all in one.

You wouldn't say *Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI',* would you? Of 
course not. Ask yourself why not.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220610/9d86dc01/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list