<p dir="ltr">yes, you're right.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I obviously confused you, because of my previous comments. here's what happened:</p>
<p dir="ltr">De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun. However I wasn't (and still am) unable to accept that.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In order for a {-bogh} clause to be able to be considered a noun, then that noun has to be either a subject, or an object of the verb which carries the {-bogh}.</p>
<p dir="ltr">{muqIpta' yaS}<br>
the officer who hit me</p>
<p dir="ltr">{paq qanobta'bogh}<br>
the book which I gave you</p>
<p dir="ltr">When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation could only be "the here which I am being".</p>
<p dir="ltr">Unless if it is possible, for a locative word like {naDev} to be considered an object. but noone here has ever taught me that this is possible. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And how could it be ? If it was possible, then at the sentence {naDev, qama' qIp yaS} "here the officer hits the prisoner", we would have two objects before the verb thus producing object-object-verb-subject (which is illegal). And of course, noone can say that the {naDev} is a beneficiary since it carries no {-vaD}, and it isn't affected from the action.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So, until someone is able to explain to me this matter in a logical and meaningful way, I will continue to believe that there is no way we can explain this baq'batlh sentence by the grammar we know so far.<br>
<br>
qunnoH jan puqloD<br>
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 Dec 2016 1:18 pm, "Brian Cote" <<a href="mailto:wearetheinformation00@gmail.com">wearetheinformation00@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Slightly beside mayqel's point, but in the phrase {naDev jIHtaH} /I am here/ (see TKD 27-28pp), the {naDev} is implicitly locative, right? So it can never mean /I am the here/(?) It should be considered {naDev[Daq] jIHtaH} grammatically, although the {-Daq} is never written explicitly in this case. That is correct, right?<div><br></div><div>QImSIr<br><br>On Sunday, December 18, 2016, mayqel qunenoS <<a href="mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target="_blank">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">> DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'."<br>
> /Now I will tell you why I am here./</p>
<p dir="ltr">if the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is indeed a noun, them I believe this resembles the "ship in which I fled" problem.</p>
<p dir="ltr">if we accept the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun, then obviously by the same reasoning we need to accept {Duj jInarghbogh} as a noun too, unless the {naDev} is the object of {jIHtaHbogh}, thus producing "the here which I am being".</p>
<p dir="ltr">of course in star trek everything is possible, so perhaps someone can change state of being thus from a humanoid becoming a place.. but then again the english translation doesn't say "now I will tell you why I became the here".</p>
<p dir="ltr">qunnoH jan puqloD<br>
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 Dec 2016 10:31 pm, "SuStel" <<a>sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>On 12/17/2016 1:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.</p>
<p dir="ltr">however based on what I know, I can't analyze it.
"here which I am being I don't know it". shouldn't the {naDev}
always come first ? and what is its role in that sentence ? is
it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object of {vISovbe'}, or
both ?</p>
<p dir="ltr">as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously
missing something here, and by the looks of it, it must be
something pretty important..</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I've never heard a satisfactory analysis of the sentence either.
But Okrand obviously has one to use the <b>jIHtaHbogh</b> word
more than once.<br>
</p>
<pre cols="72">--
SuStel
<a href="http://trimboli.name" target="_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a>tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>