tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 28 04:36:39 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC (old): SaQum
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: KLBC (old): SaQum
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 16:31:02 -0400
- In-Reply-To: "William H. Martin"'s message of Mon, 27 Jun 94 17:33:08 EDT <[email protected]>
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 17:33:08 EDT
>While it is true that in the two examples Okrand gives in TKD,
>he translates {-meH} as "in order to", he also offers "for, for
>the purpose of" in the text. Why do you think he bothered to
>list those if the only valid translation is "in order to"? In
>the table, it is listed as "for (purpose marker)". Why bother
>with THAT if the only valid translation is "in order to"?
>Yes, if you translate my sentence with "in order to", then it
>doesn't make much sense. So?
I think I'm going to be answering a lot of mail like this this mail session
(and possibly changing my position before I'm done) so please forgive me
for failing to address points you make later on.
It looks to me like you're reading too much into the English definitions,
even as Glen Proechel says that "bang" can mean "love (abstract noun)" or
"pong" can mean "call (in the sense of try to get someone's attention)"
because those words occur in their definition. I maintain that "-meH"
means "in order to", and *as a clarification*, Okrand amplified the
definition by "for the purpose of"---as a synonym of "in order to". As
nachHegh pointed out, those two constructions in English mean very
nearly the same thing. Now, it happens that in English the "for the
purpose of" construction can take on a very different meaning (and even
then not for everyone; nachHegh said that even when he reads the English
with "for the purpose of" he winds up with the same problem). I'm a little
fuzzy as to how "for the purpose of" can mean "regarding" myself (and
that's what you're saying here: regarding my speaking Klingon, etc).
>I sincerely think my original suggestion makes sense, and I
>think it makes MORE sense than using {-DI'}. If I am wrong in
>this, then I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the suffix
>{-meH} that should be corrected. Could we hear a little more
>dialog on this before I make that kind of fundamental change in
>my useage of the language?
"-DI'" makes sense, but it admittedly relies on a different set of
pragmatics that may not be perfectly transparent either. However, I
maintain that "-meH" really means "in order that" and that the "for the
purpose" construction was meant as explanation, not an additional meaning.
Has anyone got some cannon on "-meH"? It's not used much in the cannon, I
fear.
>charghwI'
~mark