[111662] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] verbs with {-bogh} and numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 20 03:55:40 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:28:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOsdJX5V=AW862ysu7=PKxhtkazCTPj7CBYdA6yUvqVGcw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============6297639588130228710==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------4C527C04A21DEAFFCC3DC49B"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------4C527C04A21DEAFFCC3DC49B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/19/2017 11:17 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com
> <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Lets say I write:
>
> {qay'bogh ghu'}
> a situation which is a problem
>
> I can also write:
> {qay'bogh cha' ghu'}
> two situations which are problem
>
> But can I also write:
> {wej qay'bogh ghu'}
> three situations which are problem ?
>
>
> 1) The gloss for *qay'* is "be a problem, be a hassle". The use of
> "be" in the gloss suggests it might be intended as a stative verb,
> though I don't think it's ever been used either adjectivially or with
> a *-bogh* so I can't say for sure. So you can probably just get away
> with *ghu' qay'*.
I see no problem at all with *ghu' qay'.*
> 2) *wej qay'bogh ghu'* feels wrong to me. Are there examples where an
> N-N construction or a number-N phrase is interrupted by an intervening
> *-bogh* clause, *A (Vbogh B)*? In this case, *qay'* isn't transitive,
> so it's not likely someone would get confused and interpret the *wej*
> as an object. But splitting the construction like that feels...
> awkward. It might not be strictly ungrammatical (or it might be) but
> stylistically it's kind of jarring.
I have no problem with this either, and I don't find it jarring. TKD
tells us that when you construct a relative clause, that clause with its
head noun is treated as if it were itself just a noun. If *qay'bogh
ghu'* is /*foo,*/ then *wej /foo/ *is completely legal.
How many *qay'bogh ghu'* do you have? *wej qay'bogh ghu'.*
mayqel is once again probing the limits of noun ordering and scopes, and
the answer here is the same as always: we don't have enough data to answer.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------4C527C04A21DEAFFCC3DC49B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/19/2017 11:17 AM, nIqolay Q
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsdJX5V=AW862ysu7=PKxhtkazCTPj7CBYdA6yUvqVGcw@mail.gmail.com">On
Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Lets say I
write:<br>
<br>
{qay'bogh ghu'}<br>
a situation which is a problem<br>
<br>
I can also write:<br>
{qay'bogh cha' ghu'}<br>
two situations which are problem<br>
<br>
But can I also write:<br>
{wej qay'bogh ghu'}<br>
three situations which are problem ?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) The gloss for <b>qay'</b> is "be a problem, be a hassle".
The use of "be" in the gloss suggests it might be intended as a
stative verb, though I don't think it's ever been used either
adjectivially or with a <b>-bogh</b> so I can't say for sure.
So you can probably just get away with <b>ghu' qay'</b>.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I see no problem at all with <b>ghu' qay'.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsdJX5V=AW862ysu7=PKxhtkazCTPj7CBYdA6yUvqVGcw@mail.gmail.com">
<div>2) <b>wej qay'bogh ghu'</b> feels wrong to me. Are there
examples where an N-N construction or a number-N phrase is
interrupted by an intervening <b>-bogh</b> clause, <b>A (Vbogh
B)</b>? In this case, <b>qay'</b> isn't transitive, so it's
not likely someone would get confused and interpret the <b>wej</b>
as an object. But splitting the construction like that feels...
awkward. It might not be strictly ungrammatical (or it might be)
but stylistically it's kind of jarring.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I have no problem with this either, and I don't find it jarring.
TKD tells us that when you construct a relative clause, that
clause with its head noun is treated as if it were itself just a
noun. If <b>qay'bogh ghu'</b> is <i><b>foo,</b></i> then <b>wej
<i>foo</i> </b>is completely legal.</p>
<p>How many <b>qay'bogh ghu'</b> do you have? <b>wej qay'bogh
ghu'.</b><br>
</p>
<p>mayqel is once again probing the limits of noun ordering and
scopes, and the answer here is the same as always: we don't have
enough data to answer.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------4C527C04A21DEAFFCC3DC49B--
--===============6297639588130228710==
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
--===============6297639588130228710==--
