This isn't something I'd actually do, but I'm asking to see if my understanding is correct. Suppose I write: {qama' qIppu'bogh neH yaS'e'} This can mean "the officer who has merely hit the prisoner", but it can also mean "the officer who has hit only the prisoner". Right ? Of course, we could just place the {neH} right after the {qama'} and eliminate the ambiguity.. But I'm just trying to understand how things work. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 2/26/2020 9:07 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{qama' qIppu'bogh neH yaS'e'}
This can mean "the officer who has merely hit the prisoner", but it can also mean "the officer who has hit only the prisoner". Right ?
No, because *yaS'e'* is also part of the relative clause. The entire relative clause, including its noun arguments, counts as a noun. *qama' neH qIppu'bogh yaS'e'*/the officer who hit only the prisoner/ *qama' qIppu'bogh neH yaS'e'*/the officer who merely hit the prisoner/ *qama' qIppu'bogh yaS'e' neH*/only the officer who hit the prisoner/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
qama' neH qIppu'bogh yaS'e' the officer who hit only the prisoner qama' qIppu'bogh neH yaS'e' the officer who merely hit the prisoner qama' qIppu'bogh yaS'e' neH only the officer who hit the prisoner
ok, I understand these examples, thanks.. But there's still something which confuses me. Suppose we wrote: {qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH yaS} The first translation which comes to mind, is "the prisoner who has been merely hit by the officer". But could it be translated too as "only the prisoner who has been hit by the officer" ? The reason I'm confused is because I can't stop wondering: If a construction as {verb-bogh noun} *can* be used as the first "noun" of a noun-noun construction, then why couldn't we have in the place of a second noun, just the {neH} acting with the meaning of "only" ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 2/27/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
qama' neH qIppu'bogh yaS'e' the officer who hit only the prisoner qama' qIppu'bogh neH yaS'e' the officer who merely hit the prisoner qama' qIppu'bogh yaS'e' neH only the officer who hit the prisoner
ok, I understand these examples, thanks.. But there's still something which confuses me.
Suppose we wrote:
{qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH yaS}
The first translation which comes to mind, is "the prisoner who has been merely hit by the officer". But could it be translated too as "only the prisoner who has been hit by the officer" ?
The reason I'm confused is because I can't stop wondering:
If a construction as {verb-bogh noun} *can* be used as the first "noun" of a noun-noun construction, then why couldn't we have in the place of a second noun, just the {neH} acting with the meaning of "only" ?
This can't be a noun-noun construction because the head noun of the relative clause has a type 5 suffix on it, and the first part of a noun-noun construction can't have a type 5 suffix on it. So let's remove that suffix. It's not necessary. Let's say context makes it clear that *qama'* is the head noun of the relative clause. *qama' qIppu'bogh neH yaS* How would this be interpreted? Let's rebuild this so we can see its constituent parts. As a noun-noun construction, the head noun is *yaS.* So we start with the basic idea: *yaS*/officer/ Next, we add the head noun of the relative clause to form the noun-noun construction: *qama' yaS*/prisoner officer/ Maybe this is an officer in charge of prisoners. Not a very good noun-noun construction, but okay. Now we add the relative clause, remembering that *yaS* is NOT part of the clause: *[qama' qIppu'bogh] yaS*/prisoner-whom-he/she/it-hit officer/ This is an officer of the type /prisoner-whom-he/she/it-hit/. I have no idea what that means. Adding the *neH* doesn't help: *[qama' qIppu'bogh] neH yaS*/only-prisoner-whom-he/she/it-hit officer/ No clue what this means. None at all. Clearly, trying to analyze this as a noun-noun construction doesn't make any sense. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, I understand, thanks. Just one final (hopefully) question.. If instead of the {qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH yaS}, we had {qama''e' qIplu'pu'bogh neH}, would this change anything, with regard to the translation of this phrase ? Or would the *only* possible meaning be, "the prisoner who has been merely hit by someone or something unspecified" ? ~ chhchcv
On 2/27/2020 10:36 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If instead of the {qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH yaS}, we had {qama''e' qIplu'pu'bogh neH}, would this change anything, with regard to the translation of this phrase ?
Or would the *only* possible meaning be, "the prisoner who has been merely hit by someone or something unspecified" ?
*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 / -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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
If instead of the {qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH} we had {qama''e' qIplu'pu'bogh neH}, I could understand that the possible translations would be "the prisoner(s) who someone merely hit" and "only the prisoner(s) who someone hit", because there is no subject. But when there is an elided subject, then don't we have the same restrictions which we would have, as when there was a subject not elided but specified ? Meaning, that in the case of an elided subject in a {-bogh} clause, where its' object carries the {-'e'}, wouldn't we have as the only possible translation the "merely" translation, instead of the "only" ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 3/2/2020 8:48 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
If instead of the {qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH} we had {qama''e' qIplu'pu'bogh neH}, I could understand that the possible translations would be "the prisoner(s) who someone merely hit" and "only the prisoner(s) who someone hit", because there is no subject.
But when there is an elided subject, then don't we have the same restrictions which we would have, as when there was a subject not elided but specified ?
Meaning, that in the case of an elided subject in a {-bogh} clause, where its' object carries the {-'e'}, wouldn't we have as the only possible translation the "merely" translation, instead of the "only" ?
When you add the explicit pronoun, are you putting the *neH* before it or after it? That completely changes the meaning. *qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH neH */the prisoner whom only he/she hit/ *qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH */only the prisoner whom he/she hit the prisoner whom he/she merely hit/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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 ? 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. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
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
Just to explain all this in more elemental terms, {neH} (besides acting as a verb in a normal sentence, or the special case of its role as the second verb in a Sentence As Object) can follow a noun (meaning “only”) or it can follow a verb (meaning “merely”). It can’t “follow” an implied subject pronoun suggested by a verb prefix and mean “only". This is true in any clause, be it relative, main, or any dependent clause. In all cases, if you want “only”, it has to follow an actual noun or pronoun (acting as a noun). So much for adding clarity… [Don’t hit “send”, charghwI’. Just don’t hit “send”…] charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 4, 2020, at 9:15 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
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 <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
So much for adding clarity… [Don’t hit “send”, charghwI’. Just don’t hit “send”…]
I'm glad you hit "send"; qeylIS knows we've argued in the past, and qeylIS know we'll likely argue in the future too. But I always read *very* carefully, everything you write, with regard to the grammar of the language. jIH:
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 SuStel: Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la' can only mean the doctor whom the commander merely hit. SuStel: qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH only the prisoner whom he/she hit the prisoner whom he/she merely hit
So, if I understand correctly, the sentence {qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH} *can* mean too "only the prisoner whom he/she hit", because the {qama'e' qIppu'bogh} part of the clause read on its' own, means "the prisoner who he/she hit". And then, in the complete clause, there is a {ghaH} following, which does not "conflict" with the implied {ghaH} of the {qama'e' qIppu'bogh} part of the clause. But the {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'} can *only* mean "the doctor whom the commander merely hit", because the {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh} part of the clause read on its' own would mean {the doctor who he/she hit}, but in the complete clause {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'} the subject isn't a "he/she" but the {la'}. Right ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 3/4/2020 10:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
charghwI':
So much for adding clarity… [Don’t hit “send”, charghwI’. Just don’t hit “send”…] I'm glad you hit "send"; qeylIS knows we've argued in the past, and qeylIS know we'll likely argue in the future too. But I always read *very* carefully, everything you write, with regard to the grammar of the language.
jIH:
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 SuStel: Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la' can only mean the doctor whom the commander merely hit. SuStel: qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH only the prisoner whom he/she hit the prisoner whom he/she merely hit So, if I understand correctly, the sentence {qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH} *can* mean too "only the prisoner whom he/she hit", because the {qama'e' qIppu'bogh} part of the clause read on its' own, means "the prisoner who he/she hit". And then, in the complete clause, there is a {ghaH} following, which does not "conflict" with the implied {ghaH} of the {qama'e' qIppu'bogh} part of the clause.
NO! You can't split apart a relative clause in order to apply a *neH* to just part of it. There is only one *ghaH* here; there cannot be an implied *ghaH* in addition to the existing one. Aside from the fact that the phrase wouldn't make sense /(the prisoner whom he hit he),/ you can't have a noun-noun construction when the first noun of the construction has a type 5 suffix. Your relative clause can't act as the first noun of a noun-noun construction with *ghaH,* because it's got an *-'e'* on it. There is no noun-noun construction here. There is only a relative clause. *qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH* can ONLY mean /the prisoner(s) whom the he/she merely hit./
But the {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'} can *only* mean "the doctor whom the commander merely hit", because the {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh} part of the clause read on its' own would mean {the doctor who he/she hit}, but in the complete clause {Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'} the subject isn't a "he/she" but the {la'}.
For exactly the same reason as above, *Qel'e' qIpta'bogh neH la'* can ONLY mean /the doctor(s) whom the commander(s) merely hit./ Do NOT pull apart a relative clause in the way you're doing. Put brackets around the entire clause. You can apply *neH* to a single word, or you can apply it to the entire clause, but you can't apply it to part of the clause. *[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH] *The entire phrase is the relative clause. Here are the allowed interpretations: *[qama''e' neH qIppu'bogh ghaH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word /qama'. /*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word /qIppu'bogh./ It does NOT apply to the clause fragment /qama''e' qIppu'bogh. /*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH neH].* /neH/ is applied only to the word /ghaH. /*[qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH] neH.*/neH/ is applied to the entire relative clause. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH can ONLY mean the prisoner(s) whom the he/she merely hit.
ok, thanks.. I was confused, because I'd read in one of your previous messages of this thread, the following: SuStel:
qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH only the prisoner whom he/she hit the prisoner whom he/she merely hit
And I was trying to understand, how we can have the "only the prisoner whom he/she hit" meaning. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
For “only the prisoner whom he/she hit,” you’d have to say {qama’ neH qIppu’bogh}. {neH} follows the noun it applies to. If you wanted to say "the prisoner whom only he hit", you’d say {qama’’e’ qIppu’bogh ghaH neH}. If you wanted to say “the prisoner whom he merely hit”, you’d say {qama’’e’ qIppu’bogh neH ghaH}. If you wanted to say, “She merely wanted to meet, for the first time, the only prisoner that the only guard had merely hit,” you’d say {qama’’e’ neH qIppu’bogh neH ‘avwI’ neH qIH neH neH neH.} Is this horse that no tricorder reveals to show life signs sufficiently beaten? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 4, 2020, at 10:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH can ONLY mean the prisoner(s) whom the he/she merely hit.
ok, thanks..
I was confused, because I'd read in one of your previous messages of this thread, the following:
SuStel:
qama'e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH only the prisoner whom he/she hit the prisoner whom he/she merely hit
And I was trying to understand, how we can have the "only the prisoner whom he/she hit" meaning.
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 3/4/2020 11:51 AM, Will Martin wrote:
For “only the prisoner whom he/she hit,” you’d have to say {qama’ neH qIppu’bogh}.
{neH} follows the noun it applies to.
Or noun phrase. *qama' qIppu'bogh* is a noun phrase that means /prisoner whom he hit/ (and various plural and pronoun variations). So you can add a *neH *to the end of it. *qama' qIppu'bogh neH* can mean /only the prisoner whom he hit./ But the *neH* can also be interpreted as applying to just the verb, so it also means /prisoner whom he merely hit./
If you wanted to say "the prisoner whom only he hit", you’d say {qama’’e’ qIppu’bogh ghaH neH}.
This can also be interpreted as /only the prisoner whom he hit,/ because *qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH* is a noun phrase to which you can append *neH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 3/4/2020 12:34 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
I give up !
The more I read, the more confused I become..
*qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH* When you want to use *neH,* you have to attach it to the end of either a noun or a verb. You can use a noun phrase or pronoun instead of a noun. You can't stick the *neH* anywhere you like; it must go immediately after either a noun (or noun phrase or pronoun) or a verb. So what are the nouns (or noun phrases or pronouns) or verbs in this example? *qama''e'*/noun /*qIppu'bogh*/verb /*ghaH*/pronoun /*qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH*/noun phrase/ You can put a *neH* immediately after any of these, and it will apply specifically to it. Applied to a noun, noun phrase, or pronoun, it means only that noun, noun phrase, or pronoun. Applied to a verb it means merely that verb. *qama''e' neH* /only the prisoner /*qIppu'bogh neH*/merely hit /*ghaH neH*/only him/her /*qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH neH*/only the prisoner whom he/she hit/ // IN THE EXAMPLE WE'RE WORKING WITH, the following is NOT a noun (or noun phrase or pronoun) or verb: *qama''e' qIppu'bogh.* In some other example this would be a perfectly good noun phrase, but in this example it is only a fragment of the actual noun phrase *qama''e' qIppu'bogh ghaH.* So you can't put *neH* after *qama''e' qIppu'bogh* with the intention of it applying to that entire fragment. // -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
So you can't put neH after qama''e' qIppu'bogh with the intention of it applying to that entire fragment.
ok, thanks ! As soon as I woke up this morning and had some coffee, I re-read this thread, and luckily finally I understood. Anyway though, even if the {qama''e' qIppu'bogh neH ghaH} *could* mean too "only the prisoner whom he/she hit", I wouldn't use it. Even if it *could* mean that, I'd prefer to write {qama''e' neH qIppu'bogh ghaH} eliminating any ambiguity. I was just wondering (as always) how things work. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin