tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 29 08:16:11 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

lay'tel SIvten :
> >Now I would say {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH}, adding {vI-} "I" as
> >the explicit subject of {DIlmeH}.  Is context so strong in the paying
> >scenario that this sort of explicitness is unnecessary?

I would think that would be obvious.  You're in a shop buying things; what 
else would it mean?

QeS lagh:
>I think part of the problem may be that you're misinterpreting the {-meH}
>clause here. As I see it, the TKD sentence {Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH}
>uses the {-meH} clause {Dochvetlh DIlmeH} to modify {Huch}, not to modify
>the main clause. These are the two possible analyses:
>
><Dochvetlh DIlmeH> Huch 'ar DaneH
>- in which we'd probably expect {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH}; and
>
><Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch> 'ar DaneH
>- in which both it and {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH} are fine.
>
>I think that the second is the case, and that yes, context clearly
>identifies who's paying whom.

Exactly right:  "How much money-to-pay-for-that-thing do you want?"

{DIlmeH Huch} is a "purpose noun" and *not* part of a purpose clause.  If 
it helps, think of {DIlmeH Huch} as "price" (lit. "money for paying [for 
something]).  {Dochvetlh} modifies this purpose noun:  {Dochvetlh <DIlmeH 
Huch>} the price of that thing (over there) vs. this thing (here).

There are a few other known purpose nouns:

   {chenmoHlu'meH Daq}  "construction site"

   {DevmeH paq}  "guide(book)"

   {ghojmeH taj}  "a boy's knife (knife for learning)"

   {ngongmeH Duj}  "experimental ship, prototype vessel"

   {SopmeH pa'}  "dining room"

   {[quv]qa'meH vIttlhegh}  "replacement proverb"

   {Qapchu'meH ['aqroS] chuq}  "[Maximum] Effective Range"

   {QongmeH Duj}  "sleeper ship"

>Personally, I like the idea that {-meH} clauses that modify verbs should
>take prefixes wherever appropriate, but those modifying nouns do not need to
>(but I'd argue they still can: {maghwI' vIHoHmeH taj} "a knife for me to
>kill traitors with"). While I don't seek to make that the final word on the
>subject, it gets rid of a lot of ambiguity, and I've found it a useful
>technique.

We still don't know all of the finer points of using these purpose noun 
phrases, but none of these "conjugated" types of purpose nouns have turned 
up so far.

It may be theoretically possible, but not every possibility is used in 
Klingon (or in any language for that matter).  Many people have wanted to 
use a "conjugated" derived {-wI'} noun - e.g. *{muSo'wI'} personal cloaking 
device, "thing that conceals me" - but none are known in the corpus.  I 
don't think Okrand has ever said it outright, but this lack of relevant 
examples tends to imply that these types of nouns can only be formed from a 
bare, unconjugated (i.e. unprefixed) verb stem.



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level