While what you’ve written is grammatically correct, it is ambiguous without context. It could be a Romulan probe which seeks and sometimes kills. It could be a probe that seeks and sometimes kills Romulans. In the canon example, we know that it’s a probe associated with Romulans. It’s not a probe that kills Romulans. The story that included the quote gave us that context. If we had not had any context, the original could have meant a probe that hunts and kills Romulans. The original was ambiguous in terms of the grammar, but context made it clear. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On May 10, 2022, at 8:09 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think this could be wrong, but I'll ask anyway to make certain.
We have the Ca'Non:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej Hoghbogh nejwI'
If I remember correctly, charghwI' once wrote that it isn't "a probe which locates and kills Romulans", but rather "a probe of the Romulans which hunts and kills".
But let's assume that the meaning is "a probe which locates and kills Romulans". Suppose I write:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej rut Hoghbogh nejwI' probe which locates and occasionally kills romulans
Would it be correct? Could we place a non-ovs element before the second {-bogh} of a {-bogh}'ed noun?
(Which in this case is an adverb, but could also be a time stamp, and/or a locative).
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org