tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 21 17:55:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: tlhIngan loDvam 'Iv ?
ja' SuStel:
>Unfortunately, changing this to {"postcard" lInglu'bogh} means you have to
>accept using a {-bogh} clause on a noun with {-Daq}. Perhaps this is
>possible, but it's certainly questionable.
It's okay if the noun with {-Daq} is the *subject* of the {-bogh} clause,
anyway:
{meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} "Only a fool fights in a burning house."
If there's no other obvious head noun on the {-bogh} verb, a preceding noun
with {-Daq} or some other type 5 suffix is the most likely candidate to act
as the object of the relative clause, but it's not very pretty.
-- ghunchu'wI'