tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 22 10:44:02 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: Question about -bogh
- From: "ADM::RSORENSEN"@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu
- Subject: KLBC: Question about -bogh
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 12:42:24 -0600 (CST)
Started getting down & dirty with relative clauses today. This question
involves suffixes for the head noun. Case in point:
This chocolate is for the officer whom he hit.
? yaSvaD qIppu'bogh 'oH yuchvam'e'
or should -vaD go after bogh? I ask this because of the statement in TKD
(pg. 64 para. 2): "The whole construction...is used...as a noun".
Basically, which way should I be thinking:
This is for (the officer whom he hit) >> -vaD follows rel. clause
or
This is for (the officer) whom he hit >> -vaD follows head noun
'ej vaj tlhetlh
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Sorensen "...and so it goes."
St. John's University Computing Services -- Linda Ellerbee
Collegeville MN 56321-2000
[email protected] v:612-363-2035 f:612-363-2761
-------------------------------------------------------------------