On 10/19/2017 12:29 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
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'.*
It makes sense grammatically. But as a stylistic thing, it feels to me like there's more potential for confusion when splitting the words apart like that.
Forget *wej,* then. *chorgh qay'bogh ghu'*/eight problematical situations./ There is no other possible interpretation there. How about a *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'*/Romulan hunter-killer probe /(KCD)? It is explicitly NOT a probe that hunts and kills Romulans; it is a probe of Romulan manufacture that hunts and kills. That's some canon evidence of using a relative clause as the second noun of a noun-noun construction. Your aesthetic sense would make you say *Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh romuluSngan nejwI',* but that's not what we get. It's all about scope. A *Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh **romuluSngan nejwI'* is a "Romulan probe" that "hunts and kills." Of all Romulan probes, this is the kind that hunts and kills. A *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'* is a Romulan "probe that hunts and kills." Of all hunter-killer probes, this is the Romulan kind. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name