tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 30 15:43:16 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: TKD phrase: {-meH} clause

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

{HIvmeH Duj So'lu'}
"A ship cloaks in order to attack."

ja' Holtej:
>I don't see {Duj} here as either the noun modified by the purpose clause as
>a whole, or the subject of {HIv}.  {Duj}, by itself, is the object of {So'}.
>The purpose clause {HIvmeH} is modifying the verb {So'}, which (independent
>of the purpose clause) has {Duj} as its object.

Based on the English, the purpose clause is obviously intended to be
{HIvmeH Duj}.  That's not a noun phrase with {HIvmeH} modifying {Duj}, it's
a phrase {HIv Duj} with a {-meH} suffix on the verb: "In order for the ship
to attack."

I agree that {Duj} alone is the object of {So'}.  I believe that it is also
the subject of {HIv}.  Syntactally, one or the other of these Dujmey is
actually elided from the sentence, but as a third-person noun that elision
works just fine.  It represents the meaning perfectly.  The ship is that
which attacks, and the ship is also that which is cloaked.

{HIvmeH Duj Duj So'lu'}
"For a ship to attack, a ship is cloaked."

{HIvmeH Duj 'oH So'lu'} or {HIvmeH 'oH Duj So'lu'}
"For a ship to attack, it is cloaked." or "For it to attack, a ship is
cloaked."

Now leave out the unnecessary {'oH}, and toH!

{HIvmeH Duj So'lu'}

I often write sentences having this structure, where the subject of the
dependent clause is the same as the object of the main clause, and only one
instance of the noun appears.  It could be either of them in theory, but
akin to a superposition of quantum states, in reality it's both.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level