tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 18:45:27 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 20:44:24 -0500
At 10:05 AM 6/3/98 -0700, HomDoq wrote:
>charghwI' answered:
>> Thinking more on this, I think the clearest expression would be
>> {Qatlh yaS Suvlu'meH Qu'.} It is clearest because the thing
>
>thank you!!!
>
>so do I get it right, in saying that sentences of the form
>
>Qual (Obj V-lu'meH) Qu'
>
>can be rephrased/simplified as
>
>V-meH Qual Obj?
>
No, I would say that the Obj retains its place relative to the V-meH
verb: Obj V-meH Qual. The question _I've_ been considering is whether
the Qual verb requires an explicit subject: {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh} or
{yaS SuvmeH Qatlh Qu'}?
We seem agreed that the {-meH} verb phrase is impersonal. I can see
why charghwI' adds {-lu'}, but I don't agree it is needed. Okrand
has used the {-meH} construction impersonally without {-lu'}, as in
{ghojmeH taj}, {pe'meH taj}, and I don't think it's needed in this case.
Actually, it has some validity when the {-meH} construction comes first,
but I definitely don't think it's needed when it follows the quality verb:
Obj V-lu'meH Qual (Qu')
but
Qual Obj V-meH Qu'
In the first case, the {-meH} phrase is a dependent verb phrase, preceded by
its object and with the indefinite subject rendered by {-lu'}. In the
second case, the phrase (Obj V-meH) is used almost like a noun, and is the
modifier of {Qu'}. As I noted above, these sorts of phrases seem to be
impersonal by nature and don't require the (-lu'}.
>Taking Qov's response into account, I think that these short forms
>really give the adjectival verb an adverbial meaning and the -meH
>turns the verb into a passive participle.
>
>e.g. qIpmeH ngeD nejwI' = The probe is easily hit.
>
I don't accept that {nejwI'} can be the subject of {ngeD}. It is clearly
the object of {qIp} and needs to be in that position.
>In German, the construction "to be + infinitive" is called a
>"modal infinitive", because it can be rephrased using a modal verb
>like can, should, must etc. How do English grammarians analyze
>"to be Adj + infinitive"? (I'm asking this to see how I can
>understand the Klingon, please consider this in your answer :0)
>
As I've noted before, I believe this is a Sentence As Subject formation in
English, and ("to be Adj" + infinitive) is logically equivalent to
(infinitive = Adj): "to be hard to hit" = "hitting is hard".
I think I understand the problem, now! Your modal infinitive is actually
functioning like a compound adjective. In the phrase "the probe is hard
to hit", "hard to hit" is adjectival, used as a predicate with "probe" as
its subject. It works the same way in English, too. But in Klingon, as
I understand it, the modal infinitive is not adjectival, but verbal.
We can't designate the probe as "hard-to-hit". When we say in Klingon,
"hitting is hard", the item which is hard to hit must be the _object_
of "hitting". We've come to use the {-meH} construction to do this:
{nejwI' qIpmeH Qatlh Qu'} = {nejwI' qIpmeH} "in order to hit the probe/
hitting the probe/to hit the probe" + {Qatlh Qu'} "the task is hard",
i.e., "the task is hard to hit the probe." This is why I like charghwI''s
new formula, it makes this even clearer: Qatlh nejwI' qIpmeH Qu'} =
"The task (of hitting the probe) is hard".
>What if the subject is explicitly stated, e.g.
>
>Qatlh yaS vISuvmeH Qu'.
>
>could you write this as
>
>vISuvmeH Qatlh yaS?
>
Your movement of {vISuvmeH} is correct, but you are still (as I now
realize!) treating the {-meH} + Qual as a compound adjective: *"the
officer is a (hard for me to fight) one". In reality, {-meH} never
modifies Qual in either front or back position: before Qual, {-meH} is
a separate, dependent, verb phrase; after Qual, it is a quasi-noun
phrase modifying {Qu'}, which is the actual subject of Qual at all times.
Similarly, any object of the {-meH} phrase remains its object at all times.
Does this seem logical?
-- ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711