charghwI':
So much for adding clarity… [Don’t hit “send”, charghwI’. Just don’t hit “send”…]
I'm glad you hit "send"; qeylIS knows we've argued in the past, and qeylIS know we'll likely argue in the future too. But I always read *very* carefully, everything you write, with regard to the grammar of the language. jIH:
For example would the following be correct ? Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la' only the doctor who has been hit by the commander the doctor who has been merely hit by the commander SuStel: Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la' can only mean the doctor whom the commander merely hit. SuStel: qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH only the prisoner whom he/she hit the prisoner whom he/she merely hit
So, if I understand correctly, the sentence {qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH} *can* mean too "only the prisoner whom he/she hit", because the {qama'e' qIppu'bogh} part of the clause read on its' own, means "the prisoner who he/she hit". And then, in the complete clause, there is a {ghaH} following, which does not "conflict" with the implied {ghaH} of the {qama'e' qIppu'bogh} part of the clause. But the {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'} can *only* mean "the doctor whom the commander merely hit", because the {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh} part of the clause read on its' own would mean {the doctor who he/she hit}, but in the complete clause {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'} the subject isn't a "he/she" but the {la'}. Right ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS