<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/29/2019 9:58 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJXXw5CpJfW_osaZ8FGwGd-WC66-q2mSssJ_5pi9BQx5w@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">There's something additional I would like to ask.
SuStel;
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">vaS'a'Daq vIqraq vIleghtaHvIS taghpu'bogh 'oy' vIqImHa'
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">In the above example, as well as the Ca'NoN rudellian plague example, we have:
"{-Daq}ed noun (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses)
(verb of the sentence)"
With the {-Daq}ed noun, referring to the "all other crap", instead of
the "verb of the sentence".
But could we have as well the following ?
"{-Daq}ed noun (verb of the sentence) (all other crap i.e subordinate
& relative clauses)"
With the {-Daq}ed noun, still referring to the "all other crap" ?
Or in order for the {-Daq}ed noun to be able to refer to the "all
other crap", the "all other crap" need to necessarily follow, right
next to it in the sentence ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>As you know, the syntax of a basic sentence is</p>
<blockquote>
<p><time expressions> <adverbials and syntactic nouns>
<objects> <verb> <subjects></p>
</blockquote>
<p>and you further know that subordinate clauses that aren't purpose
or relative clauses can go here or here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><subordinate clause> <basic sentence><br>
<basic sentence> <subordinate clause><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Any subordinate clause, whether purpose, relative, or otherwise
is simply a basic sentence with a special suffix stuck on the end
of the verb.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta' HoD</b><i> Yesterday the
captain quickly fired a pistol at the Great Hall.</i></p>
<p><b>wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'bogh HoD</b> <i>the
captain who quickly fired a pistol at the Great Hall
yesterday/the pistol which the captain fired at the Great Hall
yesterday</i></p>
<p><b>wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'meH HoD</b><i> in order
that the captain had fired a pistol at the Great Hall quickly</i></p>
<p><b>wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'chugh HoD</b><i> if the
captain fired a pistol quickly at the Great Hall yesterday</i></p>
<p><b>wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'mo' HoD</b><i> because the
captain fired a pistol quickly at the Great Hall yesterday</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So all you have to do is build your subordinate clause, then put
it in the proper place relative to the main clause. Purpose
clauses have to go in front of the main clause, relative clauses
are simply noun phrases, and all other subordinate clauses go
either before or after the main clause.</p>
<p>Just remember that you don't "split" clauses — at least, not
without reaching for parenthetical phrases, which are not in
evidence anywhere in Okrand's writing. Just plug in entire clauses
where they belong.<br>
</p>
<p>Theoretically there's no limit to the number of nested or
strung-together clauses you could put together. As a practical
matter of comprehension, you don't want to go too deep into it.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>