On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 12:26, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

'oqranD:
> maS loQHa' So'lu'bogh
> maS loQ So'lu'bogh

Shouldn't in both these cases the {maS} be {maS'e'} in order for it to
be able to precede the adverb?

I think it would be better if {-'e'} is present, but I'm not sure if it's necessary. Maybe someone else can clarify.

TKD section 6.7 says "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}", but it doesn't say it can't do so if {-'e'} is absent. So at least it's not explicitly ruled out in TKD. I guess someone will now have to pull up all the relevant info on head nouns and adverbials in relative clauses revealed since TKD to justify one way or the other whether {-'e'} is required here.

Dr. Okrand also wrote that these are "descriptions. They’re commonly used, but they’re not frozen forms. So they can be manipulated grammatically." I imagine that, if they were actually to be used in a sentence, you'd have to put the {loQ[Ha']} after the {maS} to make it clear that it's, e.g., {maS['e'] loQ So'lu'bogh vIlegh} "I see the slightly-hidden moon" and not {loQ maS So'lu'bogh vIlegh} "I slightly see the hidden moon".

De'vID