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?

ter'eS

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>

Date: 6/27/19 8:08 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org

Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] two type-5 on a {-bogh} phrase

On 6/27/2019 9:00 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:

On Jun 27, 2019, at 01:46, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom.

Why not {qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'}?

These mean very different things.

Assuming we are allowed to use -'e' for emphasis in a relative clause, which I am not convinced we are, we have

qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom
I sing an ode of respect to someone who has not forgotten KAHLESS (as opposed to someone who has not forgotten someone else).

qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' gha'tlhIq vIbom
I sing an ode of respect to Kahless the Unforgettable.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name