tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 09 23:19:29 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-meH} and its useage
>Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:04:16 -0600 (CST)
>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: {-meH} and its useage
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
'eQ asked:
>: I just wondered how it would look like if a {-meH} phrase would modify a
>: verb, especially if both the {-meH} phrase *and* the other verb has both
>: subject and object.
Voragh wrote:
>Some quick reactions. Remember, all verbs in a sentence have a subject, it's
>just not always explicitly stated. Here are examples of -meH clauses from
>canon with verbs having objects (explicit and otherwise) for you to examine:
(Some examples cut out.)
>: My example sentence is:
>: The warrior attacks the boy in order to learn the boy {tonSaw'}.
>This English sentence is unclear. Do you mean that 1) the warrior attacks
>the boy in order to teach the boy tonSaw' (i.e. the warrior is the boy's
>tonSaw' teacher), or 2) the warrior attacks the boy in order to judge the
>state of the boy's tonSaw' (in order to see how good the boy really is or
>trick the boy into revealing his ability or learn which style of tonSaw' the
>boy uses)?
I did not think of this ambiguity but I meant "The warrior attacks >the boy
in order to teach the boy tonSaw'."
>: Now, should this be expressed as:
>: {tonSaw' ghojmeH loDHom loDHom HIv SuvwI'}
>: or:
>: {loDHom tonSaw' ghojmeH loDHom HIv SuvwI'}
>: (Since the TKD [p64] talks about the purpose clause preceeding the *verb*,
>: not the object-verb-subject construction.)
>:
>: And in both these cases it would be easy to mix up subject and object of
>: the two phrases, for example if the final object-verb-subject did not have
>: an object noun.
>You could replace one of the {loDHom}s with a pronoun. You can also just
>leave the {ghaH} out altogether. Using punctuation helps too.
Ok, thats nice of you to point out. But I was trying to come up with a
sentence that had expicit subject and object nouns all along, since I was
interested in what this would look like.
>1) tonSaw' ghojmeH loDHom, (ghaH) HIv SuvwI'.
- This answered my question. Thanks!
> or you could put the -meH clause last:
>
> (ghaH) HIv SuvwI', tonSaw' ghojmeH loDHom.
>
>2) tonSaw'Daj ghojmeH, loDHom HIv SuvwI'.
Really?! TKD (p64) states: "The purpose clause [whose verb end in -meH]
*always precedes* the noun or verb whose purpose it is describing."
(Epathsize added) Is there newer canon I do no know of, to support your
opinion here?
/'eQ, Sweden