tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 20 14:03:47 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-meH} and its useage
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-meH} and its useage
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:03:00 -0800
At 23:32 98-01-09 -0800, 'eQ wrote:
toH, 'eQ! We're you here many months ago asking a question about runes?
I'm very pleased you're studying the language for real now and have come back.
}'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'."
The ambiguity was in the misuse of the English "learn". Its object is
always the thing learned, so the English sentence was ungrammatical and
Voragh saw two possible intended meanings.
}>: Now, should this be expressed as:
}>: {tonSaw' ghojmeH loDHom loDHom HIv SuvwI'}
}>
}>You could replace one of the {loDHom}s with a pronoun. You can also just
}>leave the {ghaH} out altogether. Using punctuation helps too.
I like both loDHom. It makes it absolutely clear whom he attacked.
}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 and TKD are correct. I see ghunchu'wI' had some wise things to say on
this, too.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian