yes, you're right.

I obviously confused you, because of my previous comments. here's what happened:

De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun. However I wasn't (and still am) unable to accept that.

In order for a {-bogh} clause to be able to be considered a noun, then that noun has to be either a subject, or an object of the verb which carries the {-bogh}.

{muqIpta' yaS}
the officer who hit me

{paq qanobta'bogh}
the book which I gave you

When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation could only be "the here which I am being".

Unless if it is possible, for a locative word like {naDev} to be considered an object. but noone here has ever taught me that this is possible.

And how could it be ? If it was possible, then at the sentence {naDev, qama' qIp yaS} "here the officer hits the prisoner", we would have two objects before the verb thus producing object-object-verb-subject (which is illegal). And of course, noone can say that the {naDev} is a beneficiary since it carries no {-vaD}, and it isn't affected from the action.

So, until someone is able to explain to me this matter in a logical and meaningful way, I will continue to believe that there is no way we can explain this baq'batlh sentence by the grammar we know so far.

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'


On 18 Dec 2016 1:18 pm, "Brian Cote" <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com> wrote:
Slightly beside mayqel's point, but in the phrase {naDev jIHtaH} /I am here/ (see TKD 27-28pp), the {naDev} is implicitly locative, right? So it can never mean /I am the here/(?) It should be considered {naDev[Daq] jIHtaH} grammatically, although the {-Daq} is never written explicitly in this case. That is correct, right?

QImSIr

On Sunday, December 18, 2016, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

> DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'."
> /Now I will tell you why I am here./

if the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is indeed a noun, them I believe this resembles the "ship in which I fled" problem.

if we accept the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun, then obviously by the same reasoning we need to accept {Duj jInarghbogh} as a noun too, unless the {naDev} is the object of {jIHtaHbogh}, thus producing "the here which I am being".

of course in star trek everything is possible, so perhaps someone can change state of being thus from a humanoid becoming a place.. but then again the english translation doesn't say "now I will tell you why I became the here".

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'


On 17 Dec 2016 10:31 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/17/2016 1:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.

however based on what I know, I can't analyze it. "here which I am being I don't know it". shouldn't the {naDev} always come first ? and what is its role in that sentence ? is it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object of {vISovbe'}, or both ?

as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously missing something here, and by the looks of it, it must be something pretty important..


I've never heard a satisfactory analysis of the sentence either. But Okrand obviously has one to use the jIHtaHbogh word more than once.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org


_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org