SuStel:

> qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH

> the prisoner(s) whom he/she/it(/they) 

> merely hit

> only the prisoner(s) whom 

> he/she/it(/they) hit 

If instead of the {qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH} we had {qama''e' qIplu'pu'bogh neH}, I could understand that the possible translations would be "the prisoner(s) who someone merely hit" and "only the prisoner(s) who someone hit", because there is no subject.

But when there is an elided subject, then don't we have the same restrictions which we would have, as when there was a subject not elided but specified ?

Meaning, that in the case of an elided subject in a {-bogh} clause, where its' object carries the {-'e'}, wouldn't we have as the only possible translation the "merely" translation, instead of the "only" ?

When you add the explicit pronoun, are you putting the neH before it or after it? That completely changes the meaning.

qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH neH
the prisoner whom only he/she hit

qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH
only the prisoner whom he/she hit
the prisoner whom he/she merely hit

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name