tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 30 10:50:23 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause

d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

...Paul wrote:
> 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 agree that the last sentence is ambiguous by itself, but not in the
context of the first sentence, which says "The phrase {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} 'a
truce (in order) to confer' is the object of the verb {neH}...."  Doesn't
get much plainer than that.

> ...Paul

--Holtej

Back to archive top level