[Tlhingan-hol] "up to" or "as many as"

[David Trimboli]

On 7/12/2013 10:21 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>>> I'm skeptical towards placing a counting word before the verb
>>> rather than the noun; in my mind, that would make {jav} the
>>> object (or perhaps the beneficiary} of {DuHbogh}.
>>
>> Which turns out to be nonsensical: "idea which is impossible six."
>
> Yes, but there are plenty of cases where the same principle wouldn't
> be nonsensical. {chorgh HoHbogh tlhIngan}, {Soch Sopbogh targhmey},
> {jav naDbogh joHpu'}...

Sure, but this is not one of those cases.

> Primarily, though, my issue is with placing the number ahead of the
> verb. I suppose it's not impossible, though; paq'batlh (paq'raD,
> Canto 1, Stanza 9) does mention {Heghpu'bogh nuvpu' qa'pu'} in
> reference to the spirits of the dead, suggesting one can use a -bogh
> phrase as one of the "nouns" in a noun+noun compound.

The verb makes a clause dependent on the noun; it does not act 
independently in the sentence.

> I don't understand why you don't want the {jav} in the subject,
> though. Is it because you feel that makes them be impossible only
> when considered together?

Stylistic preference. It's the difference between "six impossible 
things" and "an impossible six things."

jav [DuHbe'bogh Doch]
DuHbe'bogh [jav Doch]

Doing it the latter way also risks confusing it with {[DuHbe'bogh jav] 
Doch} "a thing of impossible sixes." It's unlikely that the former would 
be mistaken for the nonsensical "a thing of an impossibled six," since 
one does not expect {DuH} to take an object.

-- 
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/