tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 01 02:38:14 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)

...Paul ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Alan Anderson wrote:
> ja' ...Paul:
> I don't understand how you reached that conclusion.  "Purpose clauses
> precede what they modify" *is* completely accurate.  I see that it
> does not exactly meet your expectation, since what you expect is more
> than what TKD says.  But isn't that because your expectation *added*
> something, and not because the statement in TKD is missing information?

It's because it's inconsistent with what Okrand appears to intend when he 
uses "precedes" in other places in the TKD.  In those other cases, when he 
says "X precedes Y", he means X comes before Y, without Z in between.  In 
this case, it appears that an object may occur between the purpose clause 
and the verb it is modifying.  This is shown by the example /jagh luHoHmeH 
jagh lunejtaH/.

Even if we ignore what Okrand writes about where purpose clauses are 
placed, this example shows us that a purpose clause modifying a verb 
occurs BEFORE the object of that noun.

> I only see one assumption: a verb-meH modifying a noun may be a bare
> verb with no subject or object.  This assumption is well supported by
> canon examples.  The other "assumption" you state seems to be such an
> obvious interpretation of the sentence that I would hardly call it an
> assumption at all.  In order for it to be interpreted differently,
> one must also assume either that the sentence is grammatically
> incorrect (which makes it rather unsuitable as support for a given
> point) or that it is unique evidence for a hitherto unwritten
> grammatical feature.
>
> I know, I know -- if you choose several such examples, applying that
> same single assumption can make them all support the novel
> grammatical feature.  But I prefer the simpler conclusion: the
> sentences are correct and do not imply anything special about verb-
> modifying purpose clauses.

Ignore my arguments about whether or not the clauses are modifying nouns 
or verbs for a moment.

The last sentence you wrote does not match the discussion at all.  What 
has been proposed is that the sentences in question imply that for purpose 
noun clauses, an indefinite subject can be implied when there is no prefix 
or /-lu'/ suffix.  There are two options:  The implication is correct, or 
the examples are wrong.  These two options are incompatible with each 
other; you can't have both.

You seem to be in favor of NOT presuming anything about the grammar -- and 
I'm right there with you.  But then you say you want to presume the 
examples are correct.  The whole reason this came up is because they can't 
both be true, regardless of whether or not they're modifying nouns or 
verbs.

So, are you in favor, then, of saying that when a purpose clause modifies 
a noun, an indefinite subject may be implied if there is no prefix and no 
/-lu'/ suffix?  That's what's been proposed.  It is a feature that is not 
documented by Okrand, only inferred from the examples.  My arguments 
beyond that have been to say that there is evidence it's not JUST purpose 
*noun* phrases, if we're going to make that leap -- or that perhaps the 
examples in question are simply inaccurate.

...Paul

          ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
   ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
            "Do, or do not.  There is no 'try'." -- Yoda

Back to archive top level