Some subordinate clauses can’t be moved to the end of the sentence. {-meH} clauses, for example. And relative clauses have to accompany the head noun, wherever it is in the main sentence, so if the direct object of the main clause is the subordinate clause, you have no choice but place the locative in an ambiguous place, leaving context to clarify. There is no grammatical way to disambiguate without context. But when a subordinate clause CAN be moved to the end, yes, you can have the locative marker at the beginning of the subordinate clause instead of at the beginning of the main clause. Will Martin willmartin2@mac.com
On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:58 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's something additional I would like to ask.
SuStel;
vaS'a'Daq vIqraq vIleghtaHvIS taghpu'bogh 'oy' vIqImHa'
In the above example, as well as the Ca'NoN rudellian plague example, we have:
"{-Daq}ed noun (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses) (verb of the sentence)"
With the {-Daq}ed noun, referring to the "all other crap", instead of the "verb of the sentence".
But could we have as well the following ?
"{-Daq}ed noun (verb of the sentence) (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses)"
With the {-Daq}ed noun, still referring to the "all other crap" ?
Or in order for the {-Daq}ed noun to be able to refer to the "all other crap", the "all other crap" need to necessarily follow, right next to it in the sentence ?
~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org