On 5/14/2019 1:43 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Interesting.. I hadn't thought of that possibility..
However, although I wouldn't do it while writing somewhere, where I wouldn't be providing the english translation too, here is how I would understand it..
The {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, I would understand it as {tIQbogh (qotlhbogh vIghro')}, i.e. "cat which tickles which is ancient".
The {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, I would understand it as {qeqmeH (langmeH mIw)}, i.e. "thinning process in order to train".
I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, could be read too as, {(tIQbogh qotlhbogh) vIghro'}, although I can't *feel* any actual difference between them.
While nothing in the given rules prohibits {Xbogh {Ybogh Z}} or {XmeH {YmeH Z}}, we've never seen anything like them. I don't see any way these could be interpreted as {{Xbogh Ybogh} Z} or {{XmeH YmeH} Z}.
I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'} could also mean {tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro'}; although I can't *feel* any actual difference between them.
The only semantic difference I see is in scoping: in *tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'* the tickling is more closely associated with the cat than the being ancient. In *tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro'* the tickling and the being ancient are equally applicable to the cat.
And qeylIS knows I wonder, whether the {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, could also mean {qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw}, which *is* indeed quite different..
In both cases just stick with the one with the conjunction. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name