There is a simple rule to follow when evaluating {-bogh} clauses: if you remove {-bogh}, the sentence should make sense. {nep 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} doesn't make sense at all. Thus there is something wrong with the relative clause as well. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, April 27th, 2022 at 15.21, D qunen'oS <d.koun@outlook.com> wrote:
Thank you voragh and SuStel for taking the time to reply. But there's something I still don't understand.
SuStel:
You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can 'ej them. You can't say, for instance, nepbogh 'ej tojmeH which lies and for deceiving.
But saying {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} isn't somehow equivalent to the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} "romulan hunter-killer probe"? If the {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh mu'mey} is correct, then why would the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} be any different? We just substitute one type-9 with another.
SuStel:
You CAN say nepbogh tojmeH mu'meylIj your words for deceiving which lie.
I hadn't thought of this possibility.
SuStel:
But why would you want to say it this way? Why not say nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh your words which lie and which deceive?
I don't remember the exact context of the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey}; all I remember is that I was thinking something in Klingon, and my mind made the instinctive choice of combining {-bogh} and {-meH} this way.
Of course you're right, and I agree with you. I could just say {nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh}. But I can't stop wondering about the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey}. I can't understand how/why it's any different from the allowed {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh}.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org