Re: [tlhIngan Hol] two type-5 on a {-bogh} phrase
On Jun 27, 2019, at 08:22, terrence.donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Since when has any suffix besides -'e' been legal on either noun which is the subject or object of a relative verb? Did Okrand change his statement that he couldn't make it work as anything but subject or object and I missed it?
Huh, I’m new here so I hadn’t been aware that there was a restriction that relative clauses can only act as subjects or objects. I swear I’ve seen counterexamples besides what we’re discussing right now, but they were probably non-canon examples.
On 6/27/2019 9:00 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Jun 27, 2019, at 01:46, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom. Why not {qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'}? These mean very different things.
Right, and the version with {qeylISvaD} is the one that matches De'vID’s English sentence. Hence my asking why not {qeylISvaD}.
On Jun 27, 2019, at 08:30, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
Right, and the version with {qeylISvaD} is the one that matches De'vID’s English sentence. Hence my asking why not {qeylISvaD}.
Nope. That version doesn’t match De'vID’s English sentence. I just completely failed at reading it correctly. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
participants (1)
-
Daniel Dadap