tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 30 12:00:30 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 Fri, 30 Jul 2004, d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. wrote:
> 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.

Triple d'oh.  Doesn't this then defeat your line of reasoning around
/HIvmeH Duj So'lu'/ ?  Your claim there is that the object of /So'lu'/ is
/Duj/, no?  That doesn't jive with the TKD example, then.  Unless you're
also saying (which is quite possible) that it's by definition ambiguous
and can only be taken by context?

ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'
TKD says the object is /ja'chuqmeH rojHom/

HIvmeH Duj So'lu'
Would follow that object is /HIvmeH Duj/, but you contend (and I agree to
an extent) the object is merely /Duj/.

So all I'm really getting at this point is that it's ambiguous whether a
purpose clause a) applies to the object noun preceding it, and is part of
the object of the sentence or b) applies to the verb, and is not part of
the object of the sentence.

However, this can be made UNambiguous through the use of prefixes and
suffixes, provided you don't have a scenario where both possibilities
result in the same person:

HIvlu'meH Duj So'lu' -- unambiguously "For one to attack, one cloaks a
ship"

jIHIvmeH Duj So'lu' -- unambiguously "For me to attack, one cloaks the
ship"  arguably, this might be more correct/appropriate to say
/jIHIvlaHmeH Duj So'lu'/ "One cloaked the ship so I can attack"...

The further problem, I think, is that purpose clauses that "modify" a
noun are currently in a confused state.  ie. is /HIvmeH Duj/ a noun phrase
meaning "a ship for attacking" or "attack ship"?  Or is it a purpose
clause meaning "For the ship to attack"?  We have several canon examples,
such as /pe'meH taj/ and /ghojmeH taj/ which seem to imply that they can
be complete noun phrases (similar to how /-bogh/ might work).

Am I back on track now?  Does this summarize all of the issues so far?

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
 "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." -- Alan Kay

Back to archive top level