On 10/19/2017 11:17 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto: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'*.
I see no problem at all with *ghu' qay'.*
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.
I have no problem with this either, and I don't find it jarring. TKD tells us that when you construct a relative clause, that clause with its head noun is treated as if it were itself just a noun. If *qay'bogh ghu'* is /*foo,*/ then *wej /foo/ *is completely legal. How many *qay'bogh ghu'* do you have? *wej qay'bogh ghu'.* mayqel is once again probing the limits of noun ordering and scopes, and the answer here is the same as always: we don't have enough data to answer. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name