On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Lets say I write:
{qay'bogh ghu'} a situation which is a problem
I can also write: {qay'bogh cha' ghu'} two situations which are problem
But can I also write: {wej qay'bogh ghu'} three situations which are problem ?
1) The gloss for *qay'* is "be a problem, be a hassle". The use of "be" in the gloss suggests it might be intended as a stative verb, though I don't think it's ever been used either adjectivially or with a *-bogh* so I can't say for sure. So you can probably just get away with *ghu' qay'*. (My usual assumption is that a verb which has a "be" gloss can be used statively. I'm not sure about words like *vIH* "move, be in motion" or *wal* "vibrate, be in a state of vibration", in which the "be" gloss might simply be there to clarify the intransitivity of the earlier non-"be" gloss.) 2) *wej qay'bogh ghu'* feels wrong to me. Are there examples where an N-N construction or a number-N phrase is interrupted by an intervening *-bogh* clause, *A (Vbogh B)*? In this case, *qay'* isn't transitive, so it's not likely someone would get confused and interpret the *wej* as an object. But splitting the construction like that feels... awkward. It might not be strictly ungrammatical (or it might be) but stylistically it's kind of jarring.