[108282] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Something on the {vabDot}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Thu Dec 8 13:26:55 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOuFKj3uiYBmvyttoc=499b3FFxESzdbZV1UZagfdxh=zA@mail.gmail.com>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 20:26:50 +0200
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============5342507696339775856==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045dc5eafd38d0054329c7ad
--f403045dc5eafd38d0054329c7ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
nIqolay Q:
> And relative clauses can take adverbials; for
> instance, {nom lengbogh Duj} "ship that
> travels quickly" is how you say "fast ship".
ok, wait a second.. an adverb can refer to the verb of a {-bogh} thing (or
clause) ?
so far I believed that an adverb can only refer to the main verb of a
sentence !
lets write an example
reH bo'Degh Sopbogh vIghro''e' legh Human.
the human always sees the cat which eats the bird.
this is the only meaning I thought was possible !
is it possible in this sentence the {reH} to refer to the {Sopbogh} thus
giving the meaning "the human sees the cat which always eats the bird" ?
qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 8 Dec 2016 8:17 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:03 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> but indeed, all this is speculation; however if it is an adverb then it
>> *has* to refer to the {boSuqlaH}, right ? it is the only verb of the
>> sentence it would be able to refer to. the other verb is the {Qej}, which
>> is entangled in the {-bogh} thing (I don't know the grammar term), so it
>> cannot be referring to that..
>>
> The {-bogh} thing is a relative clause. And relative clauses can take
> adverbials; for instance, {nom lengbogh Duj} "ship that travels quickly" is
> how you say "fast ship". In the Monopoly sentence, {vabDot} could
> theoretically apply to either verb. We know it goes with {boSuqlaH} because
> the alternative "Earth, which even the puny Federation cherishes" makes
> less sense in context.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
--f403045dc5eafd38d0054329c7ad
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">nIqolay Q:<br>
> And relative clauses can take adverbials; for<br>
> instance, {nom lengbogh Duj} "ship that<br>
> travels quickly" is how you say "fast ship".</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">ok, wait a second.. an adverb can refer to the verb of a {-b=
ogh} thing (or clause) ?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">so far I believed that an adverb can only refer to the main =
verb of a sentence !</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">lets write an example</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">reH bo'Degh Sopbogh vIghro''e' legh Human.<b=
r>
the human always sees the cat which eats the bird.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">this is the only meaning I thought was possible !</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">is it possible in this sentence the {reH} to refer to the {S=
opbogh} thus giving the meaning "the human sees the cat which always e=
ats the bird" ?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">qunnoH jan puqloD<br>
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 8 Dec 2016 8:1=
7 pm, "nIqolay Q" <<a href=3D"mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com">niqol=
ay0@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:03 PM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihkoun@gmail.com=
</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir=3D"ltr">but indeed, all this is speculation; however if it is an adv=
erb then it *has* to refer to the {boSuqlaH}, right ? it is the only verb o=
f the sentence it would be able to refer to. the other verb is the {Qej}, w=
hich is entangled in the {-bogh} thing (I don't know the grammar term),=
so it cannot be referring to that..</p></blockquote><div>The {-bogh} thing=
is a relative clause. And relative clauses can take adverbials; for instan=
ce, {nom lengbogh Duj} "ship that travels quickly" is how you say=
"fast ship". In the Monopoly sentence, {vabDot} could theoretica=
lly apply to either verb. We know it goes with {boSuqlaH} because the alter=
native "Earth, which even the puny Federation cherishes" makes le=
ss sense in context.<br></div></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
--f403045dc5eafd38d0054329c7ad--
--===============5342507696339775856==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============5342507696339775856==--
