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'.

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