tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 29 21:33:00 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause

...Paul ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. wrote:
> > <ja'chuqmeH> rojHom neH jaghla'
> > <ja'chuqmeH rojHom> neH jaghla'
>
> TKD makes it clear that it's the latter, at the top of page 65:
>
> "The phrase {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} 'a truce (in order) to confer' is the object
> of the verb {neH} 'he/she wants it'; the subject is {jaghla'}.  The object
> is a noun {rojHom} 'truce' preceded by the purpose clause {ja'chuqmeH} 'for
> the purpose of conferring' or 'in order to confer.'"
>
> The subject of {ja'chuqmeH} is still not explicit, whether it's an elided
> {chaH} or just unstated (as in the {ghojmeH taj} examples).

Sorry for misunderstanding your original point; I understand what you're
saying.  Unfortunately, I don't think the passage actually makes the
choice of interpretations clear, because the last sentence is ambiguous on
its own -- Is the last sentence "The object is:  a noun preceded by the
purpose clause"?  Or is it "The object is a noun; it is preceded by the
purpose clause"?  The former supports your choice, the latter supports the
other.  :)

I would actually lean towards the idea that, in this particular example,
the purpose clause is modifying the whole sentence.  It's the difference
between "He wants a truce; he wants it in order to confer" (the first
example), and "He wants a truce; a truce for conferring" (second
example).  Personally, I think the first one makes more sense here,
although I can definitely see it going either way.

Unfortunately, as QeS lagh points out, there are a few "noun phrases" that
showed up in KGT that really makes this a difficult call.

/pe'meH taj/, for example, could make sense as a phrase on its own,
because arguably, a knife may be responsible for cutting.  /vutmeH 'un/,
on the other hand, and definitely /ghojmeH taj/ create some more
questions, because for the latter, it's hard to believe that the knife is
doing the teaching; rather it's likely being used as an object by someone
else...

Of course, in these examples, if the "rest of the sentence" is
third-person, it really makes little difference.  Where it becomes
particularly odd is when you've got a first- or second-person prefix on a
verb in the construction:

ghojmeH taj vIghaj  "I have a teaching knife" (slightly ambiguous?)
jIghojmeH taj vIghaj "I have a knife for the purpose of teaching." (clear)

Bleah.  Or as a Klingon would say...  Bleah.  :P

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
    "Ninja monkeys are meeting as we speak, plotting my demise."

Back to archive top level