[tlhIngan Hol] vabDot referring to the {-'e'}d noun

[mayqel qunen'oS]

paq'batlh:
> lujang maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb lurur
ghunchu'wI':
> That's a very good example. Topicalizing the object maS
> and placing it before the adverbial loQ avoids/resolves the
> potential ambiguity of whether or not the adverbial applies
> to the main verb rur.

Initially, reading the comment of ghuchu'wI', I was inclined to dismiss it
thinking that "it cannot be, there still has to be some ambiguity". But as
hard as I tried to find this ambiguity I couldn't. So I started wondering
why that is.

Finally I came to the conclusion that in cases like these, the ambiguity
vanishes for the simple fact that the adverb isn't in the appropriate slot
for an ambiguity to exist.

There are two slots for an adverb:

Slot A: At the beginning of the sentence
Slot B: After a topicalized object

Ambiguity can exist only when there's an adverb in Slot A, for the simple
reason that unless an adverb is an adverb referring to a verb, which adverb
follows the topicalized object of that verb, there's no way for that adverb
to occupy the slot between that verb and its' topicalized object.

So, now I understand the comment of ghunchu'wI'.

-- 
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/20220314/06aad046/attachment-0015.htm>