tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 29 22:14:40 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "conjunction"?
This was a really long reply, so I'm breaking it into two parts; this part
deals only with the "conjunction" terminology issue; the other one will be
more focused on the general question of purpose clauses...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, QeS 'utlh wrote:
> ghItlhpu' Paul, ja':
>> Relative clauses seem to be able to stand 'on their own' out of
>> context; purpose noun clauses seem a little less specific, and IMHO,
>> don't seem to stand up on their own.
>
> A purpose noun phrase can appear anywhere in the sentence, as evidenced
> by the canon {narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb} "the opportunity to visit you has
> escaped"; it can behave like most other noun phrases. The problem is
> merely that a purpose noun phrase in direct object position is ambiguous
> (say, in {qaSuchmeH 'eb vIghaj}, where the sentence could be analysed as
> /[qaSuchmeH] 'eb vIghaj/ or /[qaSuchmeH 'eb] vIghaj/. But this is a
> minor problem, and isn't a barrier to comprehension.
No, it's not a barrier to comprehension. My argument is that, for
defining a common phrasing for use as a noun, using relative clauses are
simpler to use.
In fact, I'd argue that *because* you can relocate the purpose clause
verb without changing meaning, it is a weak link; that is to say, a verb
constructed with the /-meH/ suffix is, in itself, the clause -- the fact
that it may appear before a verb or a noun is nearly immaterial. The fact
that /narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb/ is effectively identical to /qaSuchmeH
narghpu' 'eb/ tells me that /qaSuchmeH/ is *not* actually 'linked' to the
noun /'eb/.
So, if we are going to define a concept, it seems more appropriate to use
a relative clause, which creates a 'strong link' between concept and noun.
Plus, we know for a fact that we can "drop in" a relative clause anywhere
we'd've used a noun; I'm not sure purpose clauses 'attached' to nouns are
as sure-fire to work...
Ultimately, the question may actually be whether or not a "word" can be
the subject of the verb "connect". Does this make sense:
cha' mu'tlhegh rar mu''e'.
The word connects two sentences.
If a word cannot actually be the actor/subject of the verb, the point is
moot; /rarbogh mu'/ is senseless, and one is forced to create a construct
in which the word is not the subject:
cha' mu'tlhegh rarmeH mu''e' lo'lu'.
One uses the word to connect two sentences.
cha' mu'tlhegh DararmeH mu''e' yIlo'.
Use the word to connect two sentences!
I did manage to find in KGT /pe'meH taj/ "knife for cutting" given as a
discrete noun phrase...
However (and this kinda links to the other half of the discussion), I
found in KGT also, "The rule of /rom/" (p170-172) which basically says
that verb prefixes must "agree" with the subjects and objects. Thus, I
don't think you could say:
rarmeH mu''e' yIlo'
Unless you really mean "Use the word for he/she/it to connect it/them,"
because the pronomial prefix on /rarmeH/ doesn't match what's intended --
that is, that the word to be used is for YOU to connect them...
So even if we gloss "conjunction" as /rarmeH mu'/, one must be
conscientious that they use the proper prefix on /rarmeH/ if the person
doing the connecting is first- or second-person...
...Paul
** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}