On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 15:25, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 6/26/2019 9:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

Am 26.06.2019 um 14:48 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

Out of curiosity, since I can't think of an example..

Lets say we have a {-bogh} phrase, e.g. {bartIq leghbogh vIghro'}.

Is there a rule which prohibits, one of the nouns having a type-5, e.g.
{-'e'}, *and* at the same time the other noun having a type-5 too, e.g.
{-mo'}, {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-vaD} ?

I don't know such a rule:

{bartIqDaq bachbogh vIghro'mo' jIHagh.}

Why not?

I think what he means is that the type 5 suffixes apply to the relative clause as a whole, not to noun phrases added to the relative clause.

For instance, you can say bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro' jIba' I sit on the branch that the cat sees. The -Daq on the head noun turns the entire relative clause into a locative.

What mayqel seems to be asking is whether you could add another type 5 to the other noun in the relative clause and also have that apply to the main clause. For instance, bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro'mo' jIba'. I don't think this works, because it would make the relative clause, which is a noun phrase, have multiple syntactic roles, which is generally forbidden.

Not sure if this works or not, but it's not immediately obvious to me why it doesn't:

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

I will sing an ode of respect for the one who cannot forget KAHLESS.

It doesn't work because -'e' in a relative clause makes the noun it's attached to the head noun of the clause. I don't think you get to choose whether it means head noun or emphasis.

When -'e' is performing its role as marking emphasis, it's not really working as a syntactic marker, and is only technically a type 5 suffix. If you could choose emphasis over head noun marker, then your sentence would work, but it wouldn't really be an example of what mayqel is asking about.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name