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