combining {-meH} and {-bogh} on {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed nouns
Suppose I write: muSIghbe' nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'meylIj your lying and deceiving words don't deceive me Would that be correct? Could we create a noun which is both {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 4/26/2022 8:13 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
muSIghbe' nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'meylIj your lying and deceiving words don't deceive me
Would that be correct? Could we create a noun which is both {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed?
You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can *'ej* them. You can't say, for instance, *nepbogh 'ej tojmeH* /which lies and for deceiving./ You CAN say *nepbogh tojmeH mu'meylIj* /your words for deceiving which lie./ But why would you want to say it this way? Why not say *nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh* /your words which lie and which deceive?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Other un-{‘ej}-ed examples of {-bogh} and {-meH} used in the same sentence/clause: loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH It waits... on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown regions of the universe. (S99) ngongmeH wa' DujDaq nuHmey nISbe'bogh So'wI' jomlu'pu' [A cloaking device which didn't disrupt weaponry was installed in one experimental ship. (untranslated on card)] (S33) jolbogh ghom wa'DIch DamuvlaHmeH De' DaneHchugh, Se'vam yIjIHtaH Stay tuned for information on how you can be among the first to beam aboard! (STX) 'elmeH chaw'mey je'lu'ta'bogh will-call tickets (WSC) SaqSub'e' muSHa'bogh pawmeH leng qeylIS HuDmey Sal ghIq ghIr And Kahless traveled to his beloved Saq'sub, over the mountains (PB) may' luqotlhbogh DInobmeH matay'taHvIS mavangrup'a' Shall we rise up together and give them the fight they deserve? (DSC "Battle at the Binary Stars") -- Voragh ________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel On 4/26/2022 8:13 AM, D qunen'oS wrote: muSIghbe' nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'meylIj your lying and deceiving words don't deceive me Would that be correct? Could we create a noun which is both {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed? You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can 'ej them. You can't say, for instance, nepbogh 'ej tojmeH which lies and for deceiving. You CAN say nepbogh tojmeH mu'meylIj your words for deceiving which lie. But why would you want to say it this way? Why not say nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh your words which lie and which deceive? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/trimboli.name__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!8NPDVDOMAWC8jt_Q2BQ2J_D2cXdWtXJSaJOTkuFY0aLoQbNJJN7fM2sUyIGEpE2lVTPyjrivYARop-tt277cZv8$>
participants (3)
-
D qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel