On 3/4/2020 10:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
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.
NO! You can't split apart a relative clause in order to apply a *neH* to just part of it. There is only one *ghaH* here; there cannot be an implied *ghaH* in addition to the existing one. Aside from the fact that the phrase wouldn't make sense /(the prisoner whom he hit he),/ you can't have a noun-noun construction when the first noun of the construction has a type 5 suffix. Your relative clause can't act as the first noun of a noun-noun construction with *ghaH,* because it's got an *-'e'* on it. There is no noun-noun construction here. There is only a relative clause. *qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH* can ONLY mean /the prisoner(s) whom the he/she merely hit./
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'}.
For exactly the same reason as above, *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'* can ONLY mean /the doctor(s) whom the commander(s) merely hit./ Do NOT pull apart a relative clause in the way you're doing. Put brackets around the entire clause. You can apply *neH* to a single word, or you can apply it to the entire clause, but you can't apply it to part of the clause. *[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH] *The entire phrase is the relative clause. Here are the allowed interpretations: *[qama''e' neH qIppu'bogh ghaH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word /qama'. /*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word /qIppu'bogh./ It does NOT apply to the clause fragment /qama''e' qIppu'bogh. /*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH neH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word /ghaH. /*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH] neH.*/neH/ is applied to the entire relative clause. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name