however, if De'vID's analysis (that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun) is correct, then this raises the question: why at the tkd we have {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} instead of {naDev jIHtaHbogh vISovbe'} ? Unless of course, the rule could be assumed, that in {-bogh}ed locatives, the locative can either follow or precede the {-bogh}. But whatever the case, this is all speculative thus unable to be accepted and put to practice. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 18 Dec 2016 3:08 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree. Obviously there is grammar here, which we don't yet know. Because of this reason, attempts to analyze sentences like the aforementioned one are futile.
let alone draw conclusions, which we could employ in our daily writing. Obviously this is another {ngIq} case..
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 18 Dec 2016 2:55 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/18/2016 6:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation could only be "the here which I am being".
Unless "to be" sentences don't follow the usual rules of having subjects and objects per se. What, for instance, is the subject of *tlhIngan ghaH*? And if it's *gha**H,* then what's the verb? And if there is no verb, then what's the *ghaH* doing in *tlhIngan ghaH yaS'e'*?
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org