<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/27/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJLe5gGydHc8UJ2rGOiWFxb2i90E5+MgPxKG_HhCdUhVg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">SuStel:</div>
<div dir="auto">> qama' neH qIppu'bogh yaS'e' the officer </div>
<div dir="auto">> who hit only the prisoner</div>
<div dir="auto">> qama' qIppu'bogh neH yaS'e' the officer </div>
<div dir="auto">> who merely hit the prisoner</div>
<div dir="auto">> qama' qIppu'bogh yaS'e' neH only the</div>
<div dir="auto">> officer who hit the prisoner</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">ok, I understand these examples, thanks.. But
there's still something which confuses me.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Suppose we wrote:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">{qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH yaS}</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The first translation which comes to mind, is
"the prisoner who has been merely hit by the officer". But
could it be translated too as "only the prisoner who has been
hit by the officer" ?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The reason I'm confused is because I can't stop
wondering:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If a construction as {verb-bogh noun} *can* be
used as the first "noun" of a noun-noun construction, then why
couldn't we have in the place of a second noun, just the {neH}
acting with the meaning of "only" ?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This can't be a noun-noun construction because the head noun of
the relative clause has a type 5 suffix on it, and the first part
of a noun-noun construction can't have a type 5 suffix on it.</p>
<p>So let's remove that suffix. It's not necessary. Let's say
context makes it clear that <b>qama'</b> is the head noun of the
relative clause.<br>
</p>
<p><b>qama' qIppu'bogh neH yaS</b></p>
<p>How would this be interpreted? Let's rebuild this so we can see
its constituent parts.</p>
<p>As a noun-noun construction, the head noun is <b>yaS.</b> So we
start with the basic idea:</p>
<p><b>yaS</b><i> officer</i></p>
<p>Next, we add the head noun of the relative clause to form the
noun-noun construction:</p>
<p><b>qama' yaS</b><i> prisoner officer</i></p>
<p>Maybe this is an officer in charge of prisoners. Not a very good
noun-noun construction, but okay.</p>
<p>Now we add the relative clause, remembering that <b>yaS</b> is
NOT part of the clause:</p>
<p><b>[qama' qIppu'bogh] yaS</b><i> prisoner-whom-he/she/it-hit
officer</i></p>
<p>This is an officer of the type <i>prisoner-whom-he/she/it-hit</i>.
I have no idea what that means.</p>
<p>Adding the <b>neH</b> doesn't help:</p>
<p><b>[qama' qIppu'bogh] neH yaS</b><i>
only-prisoner-whom-he/she/it-hit officer</i></p>
<p>No clue what this means. None at all.<br>
</p>
<p>Clearly, trying to analyze this as a noun-noun construction
doesn't make any sense.<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>