tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 28 22:51:03 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC -meH
At 01:04 PM 1/28/2004, Voragh wrote:
>Dar'Qang:
>> > If OTOH one uses the -meH phrase to modify the verb, that *does*
>> > capture the meaning: "I for-the-purpose-of-learning-the-style-read the
>> > book." I like this, the way it modifies the action. But the syntax
>> > doesn't seem to work: <paq *Doch vIghojmeH vIlaD>. The two nouns are
>> > placed together, creating a confusing ambiguity.
>
>ngabwI':
>>{bIlugh} But there's no ambiguity here. {paq *Doch vIghojmeH, vIlaD} means
>>only "I order to learn the book's author's style, I read it."
>
>Dar'Qang:
>> > If one were to write <*Doch vIghojmeH paq vIlaD>, that isn't the
>> > the original meaning. I would interpret it as "I read the
>> > for-the-purpose-of-learning-the-style-book." This suggests
>> > that the topic of the book is the author's style.
>
>ngabwI':
>>{jIQoch} The sentence above says nothing about the topic of the book, only
>>the purpose for which it is being read.
>
>I'm not sure I understand Dar'Qang's point either, but I think s/he is
>confusing {-meH} purpose clauses with {-bogh} relative clauses.
Interesting. I don't believe that I have confused -meH and -bogh
clauses. However, I see that what I have done is to interpret a specific
example given for the -meH clause in a way that gives a -meH clause
"-bogh-clause-like" ability.
Specifically, the example is {ja'chuqmeH rojHom}, translated in the example
as "a truce in order to confer". I have taken this example as indicating
that a purpose clause can be directly used to modify a noun. I interpret
{ja'chuqmeH rojHom} as also identically meaning "a truce whose purpose is
to confer." (much like a sort-of -bogh clause).
And I have taken this example to imply that the sentence {ja'chuqmeH rojHom
vIghItlh} would mean "I write a truce whose purpose is to confer" in the
sense of, perhaps, I write truces for a living, and this one just happens
to be a "truce in order to confer". (note: not sure if {ghItlh} or {qon} is
the correct verb here.)
Apparently, there is something wrong with my intepretation. I just don't
know what it is. :-)
[edit]
>Compare those with purpose clauses:
>
> qonwI' *Doch vIghojmeH paq vIlaD
> I read the book in order to learn the author's style.
> In order to learn the author's style, I read the book.
I don't see any way to rectify this with {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} being a
legitimate example of -meH clause usage.
[side note: I'm surprised that we don't have -Santa' as one of the type 9
suffixes . }}:-)]
>Punctuation can be an ally! (To put it in Klingon terms.)
>
>>Some canon that may help to illustrate, off the top of my head:
>>
>>{jagh DajeymeH, nIteb yISuvrup} "To defeat the enemy, be ready to fight
>>alone." PK
>>{qa' wIje'meH, maSuv} "We fight to enrich the spirit" TKW, pg 7
>>{yIn DayajmeH, 'oy' yISIQ} "To understand life, endure pain" TKW, pg 43.
>>{bIQapqu'meH, tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS} "To really succeed, you must enjoy
>>eating poison" TKW, pg 73
>>{HIq DaSammeH, tach yI'el!} "To find ale, go into a bar." TKW, pg 181.
>
>I can give you many more canon examples of {-bogh} and {-meH} clauses to
>study if you want.
Although it's most likely that I am simply not seeing something, it has now
occurred to me that possibly Dr. Okrand originally intended for the -meH
clause to be more restrictive, but then backed off for some reason. The
Klingonska Akademien page cites TKD for the "truce" example. It might be
interesting to see TKD examples, or examples that use something like
{ja'chuqmeH rojHom} in a full sentence.
>--
>Voragh
>Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
Dar'Qang