<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">On Jun 27, 2019, at 08:22, terrence.donnelly <<a href="mailto:terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net">terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><div>Since when has any suffix besides -'e' been legal on either noun which is the subject or object of a relative verb? Did Okrand change his statement that he couldn't make it work as anything but subject or object and I missed it?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Huh, I’m new here so I hadn’t been aware that there was a restriction that relative clauses can only act as subjects or objects. I swear I’ve seen counterexamples besides what we’re discussing right now, but they were probably non-canon examples.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/27/2019 9:00 AM, Daniel Dadap
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CBCCA8E3-89BA-46EF-84EB-EB5716B4B1BD@dadap.net">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Jun 27, 2019, at 01:46, De'vID <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com></a> wrote:
qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Why not {qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'}?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>These mean very different things.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, and the version with {qeylISvaD} is the one that matches De'vID’s English sentence. Hence my asking why not {qeylISvaD}.</div></body></html>