tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 30 14:08:38 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 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?

Yup, that's what I'm saying (it's ambiguous).  The purpose clause can modify
both a noun and a verb.  I believe in the {HIvmeH} example, the translation
suggests that {Duj} is the object of {So'}.  I believe in the {DIlmeH}
example {Huch} is the object of {neH}.  I believe in both of these examples,
the {-meH} clause is modifying the sentence (the main verb), and not the
object noun ({Duj} or {Huch}).

In the {DIlmeH} example I don't think matters very much whether you view
{Huch} as the noun modified by {DIlmeH}, or as the object of {neH}.  When I
read the sentence, my mind interprets it as the latter, consistent with the
{HIvmeH} example.  You can demonstrate that {DIlmeH} can modify the verb by
making {Huch} the subject of the sentence, as in {Dochvetlh DIlmeH yap
HuchwIj}, and I don't think it's a problem that the verb {DIl} has no prefix
(as we see in the examples like {pe'meH taj}).  Nor would I have a problem
with {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH yap HuchwIj}, or {Dochvetlh DIllu'meH} and so on.

The great thing about ambiguity is that we can all have our own opinions and
be correct.  If someone finds it easier (or more correct) to view {Dochvetlh
DIlmeH Huch} as a single constituent, that's fine, it's allowed by the
grammar (and is consistent with the {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} example from TKD).
I was just advocating an alternative view, which is also allowed by the
grammar, which is closer to how I personally read the sentence (and is
consistent with the {HIvmeH} example from TKW).  The only reason I felt
inclined to enter the discussion at all is that the 2nd interpretation was
discounted as disallowed, which I disagree with.

[...]

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

HIja', pup pojlIj.  DaDelchu'mo' qatlho'.

> ...Paul

--Holtej

Back to archive top level