On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, SuStel <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