<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/30/2020 8:30 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK3f3PLF5iedcm+5c1bURrruUmxrYyaTdWRD2w7td-9Jg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">charghwI':
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dun [Qap yuQDaj ‘e’ tulbogh nuv].
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">This is grammatical and is the correct formation for what he tried to say.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
There's something I can't understand in this sentence. The subject of
the {-bogh} phrase is the {nuv}. But what is the object of the {-bogh}
phrase ? Is it only the {'e'} or is it the {Qap yuQDaj} ? Or are they
both the subject ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The object of <b>tulbogh</b> is <b>'e'.</b> The entire relative
clause consists of a sentence as object construction, <b>Qap
yuQDaj 'e' tul nuv,</b> with <b>-bogh</b> added to the main
verb, <b>tul.</b></p>
<p>The entire subject of the sentence is <b>Qap yuQDaj 'e' tulbogh
nuv</b><i> person who hopes that his planet succeeds.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK3f3PLF5iedcm+5c1bURrruUmxrYyaTdWRD2w7td-9Jg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">This aside, could we extend</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Note the difference between grammatically possible and wise.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK3f3PLF5iedcm+5c1bURrruUmxrYyaTdWRD2w7td-9Jg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> the correct {Dun [Qap yuQDaj ‘e’ tulbogh
nuv]} to net, neH sao's and to quotations too ? Suppose we write:
Dun [Qap yuQDaj net tulbogh]
someone who hopes that his planet wins is great</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No, because the relative clause has no head noun.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK3f3PLF5iedcm+5c1bURrruUmxrYyaTdWRD2w7td-9Jg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dun [Qap yuQDaj neHbogh nuv]
the person who wants his planet to win is great</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, so far as we know. But as with all of these, it's confusing
and probably not a good idea.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK3f3PLF5iedcm+5c1bURrruUmxrYyaTdWRD2w7td-9Jg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dun [Qapjaj yuQwIj jatlhbogh nuv]
the person who says may my planet win is great</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, with the same notes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK3f3PLF5iedcm+5c1bURrruUmxrYyaTdWRD2w7td-9Jg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Is there something wrong with the above sentences ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. They are too confusing to be understood without stopping and
parsing them. They're like the following perfectly grammatical
English sentences:</p>
<p><i>The horse raced past the barn fell.<br>
</i>(The horse fell. The horse was raced past the barn by someone,
and then the horse fell.)<br>
<i></i></p>
<p><i>The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt.<br>
</i>(The rate ate the malt. The cat killed the rat. The dog chased
the cat.)</p>
<p><i>Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo
buffalo.<br>
</i>(Yes, this is a grammatically correct sentence. It means,
basically, <i>Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated
by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate
other bison in their community.</i> <i>Buffalo</i> is the name
of a city in New York, the name of an animal species, and a verb
meaning <i>intimidate.</i>)<br>
<i></i></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>