[Read this for amusement purposes only.] Another way to think of it is that the word order of {-meH} and {-bogh} are figured out by completely different systems. A verb with {-meH} always precedes the noun or verb it modifies, and the verb with {-meH} paired with its noun grammatically become a noun phrase in a larger grammatical structure. A verb with {-bogh} uses the Head Noun as a subject or object, so the Head Noun could come before or after its verb with {-bogh}, and the entire clause belonging to the verb with {-bogh} including the Head Noun behaves like a noun phrase in a larger grammatical structure. So, consider the canon example you offered: romuluSngan Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh nejwI’ That’s a noun phrase that would be used in a sentence. What if we were inspired by {ghojmeH taj} and wanted to talk about a boy's version of the Romulan hunter-killer probe? We’d very naturally nest things into: romuluSngan Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh ghojmeH nejwI’ Now, the {-meH} clause with it’s noun bundled into it is a noun phrase within the noun phrases of the two {-bogh} clauses, within a larger sentence, like: vInwI’vaD romuluSngan Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh ghojmeH nejwI’ vIje’ vIneH. I want to buy a boy’s Romulan hunter-killer probe for my nephew. [Awwwwwww. How cute. This is the version that hunts people down and stings them; great for practical jokes! It’s non-lethal, unless it annoys them to death.] You wouldn’t want to toss an extra {‘ej} into that because there is no parallel grammatical construction to the {-meH} clause. It would come out something like, “I want to buy a boy’s and Romulan hunter-killer probe.” You don’t want a hunter-killer probe for a boy and a Romulan. You want the boy version of the probe, which is associated with Romulans, and this boy is not a Romulan, so it would be very, VERY wrong to put that {‘ej} in there, even if it were permitted by the grammar, and it isn’t. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Apr 28, 2022, at 8:14 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

SuStel;

...

Relative clauses and purpose clauses work in entirely different ways for entirely different purposes. It's not just a case of saying "Eh, one type 9 suffix is just like every other!" In English, there is a formal, but not always observed, rule that when you conjoin words or phrases, they should be of like kind, such that one could syntactically substitute for the other without change. It's correct to say if I see you and if I recognize you (two conditional clauses), but it's not correct to say if I see you and while I am eating (a conditional clause and a while-clause). It's correct to say apples and pears (two nouns) but not correct to say apples and happy (a noun and an adjective). And so on.

Ok, now I understand, thanks.

I thought it was just a matter of substitution one type-9 with another. In fact, thinking of this matter, I realized that in Greek too we join words/phrases of the same kind. I just hadn't noticed that until now.

-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org