On 3/4/2020 8:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH the prisoner(s) whom he/she/it(/they) merely hit only the prisoner(s) whom he/she/it(/they) hit
Couldn't this mean too "the prisoner who has been hit by only he/she/they/it" ? i.e. can't the {neH} be interpreted as acting on the elided subject ?
No. You have to have a word there to put *neH* after it.
SuStel:
qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH only the prisoner whom he/she hit the prisoner whom he/she merely hit
If instead of the {ghaH} we had as a subject not a pronoun, but a noun, would this change anything ?
For example would the following be correct ?
Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la' only the doctor who has been hit by the commander the doctor who has been merely hit by the commander
Perhaps it's a silly question, but something confuses me in the sentences where the subject is a pronoun.
When a noun is part of a relative clause, you can't apply *neH* to only part of the relative clause. You can apply *neH* to just one noun in the relative clause, but not one noun and the verb if there is another noun in the clause. It's all or nothing. In *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh la',* the relative clause is the whole thing, not just *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh.* If you've got *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh la',* you can't apply a *neH* only to the *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh* part, because *la'* is part of the clause. But if you have the relative clause *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh,* you CAN apply a *neH* to it, because that's the entire relative clause. *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'* can only mean /the doctor whom the commander merely hit./ The *neH* cannot apply to the relative clause *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh,* because that relative clause does not appear here; the clause is all of *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh la'.* A *neH* could apply to the *Qel'e',* the *qIpta'bogh,* the *la',* or the *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh la',* but not just PART of the relative clause. If you want /only the doctor whom the commander hit,/ it's *Qel'e' neH qIpta'bogh la'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name