tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 25 22:48:24 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: -bogh clause as a noun in n-n construction?

Tad Stauffer ([email protected])

• From: Tad Stauffer <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: -bogh clause as a noun in n-n construction?
• Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:51:51 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

At 11:22 PM 4/25/2004 -0400, lay'tel SIvten wrote:
>does
>not SIbDoHmey vIleghbogh pongmey vISov
>mean
>i never know the names of the satellites i see
>the main question is whether {SIbDoHmey vIleghbogh} can be used as a noun in
>a noun-noun construction.  if it can, can it be used in either position?

I don't see a problem with {SIbDoHmey vIleghbogh pongmey}. However, I did 
immediately see a (potential) problem with {not} - in this case it's 
ambiguous whether {not} refers to the {legh}ing or the {Sov}ing.
i.e., your sentence could mean
>i never know the names of the satellites i see
but it could also mean
I know the names of the satellites I never see.

You could make it unambiguous by splitting it into 2 sentences
{SIbDoHmey vIlegh. 'ach not pongchaj vISov}
or
{'op SIbDoHmey vIleghbe'. 'ach pongchaj vISov}

But I don't see a problem with using {-bogh} in a way such as:
{toQDuj vItIjta'bogh choghvat yIpep}
or
{toQDuj choghvat Dapepta'bogh yIpepHa'}

- taD

• References:
  • -bogh clause as a noun in n-n construction?
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: -bogh clause as a noun in n-n construction?
• Next by Date: ambiguity of {not} in sentences with relative clauses
• Previous by thread: -bogh clause as a noun in n-n construction?
• Next by thread: ambiguity of {not} in sentences with relative clauses
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level