tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 07 12:03:57 2011

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Compensating

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: Felix Malmenbeck

>>    Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?
>>    How much do you want for that? (TKD)
>> [...]
>> This is not a clear-cut case and others have, in fact, argued against
>> this analysis.
>
> Indeed, and if one is to take it as a purpose noun, that still leaves
> the question of what purpose exactly Dochvetlh serves: Is it the the
> object of the purpose - "money for (paying for that thing)" - or is
> this a noun-noun construction - "(money for paying) pertaining to that
> thing".

From: Voragh

> These "purpose nouns" can be hard to identify since they also appear
> to be run of the mill purpose clauses.  For instance, I've always
> thought that {DIlmeH Huch} is Klingon for "price":
>
>     Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?  How much do you want for that?
>     (TKD)
>
> Note that this appears to mean:  "How much money do you want (in
> order) to pay for that thing."  But notice that the subject of {DIl}
> is actually {Huch} ("marked" with the zero-prefix).  If it were a true
> purpose clause - and assuming that the customer didn't just mis-speak
> - you would need to add an object prefix to the verb:

Woah! What's all this terminology you're throwing around? "Purpose
noun"? "True purpose clause"?

A purpose clause is a noun or verb modifier. It goes before the noun or
verb it's modifying. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it goes
*immediately* before the word it modifies. In some cases more than one
word is said to "go before" another word (like a purpose clause
modifying a verb with an object). I suspect that when purpose clauses
are said to modify verbs, they are really modifying verbal phrases—which
include any objects. If that is so, then the object is more closely tied
to the verb than the purpose clause.

It's true that we don't know the rules of when purpose clauses are fully
conjugated. My guess is that they're conjugated when the meaning refers
to a specific situation, and they remain unconjugated when referring to
a generalized purpose. This will typically lead to purpose clauses on
nouns remaining unconjugated, and purpose clauses on verbs being
conjugated more often than not. (I haven't looked through the full canon
for support of this idea.) Thus, {qarIQmoHmeH ghojmeH taj vIlo'pu'} "I
used a learning-knife to injure you." {qarIQmoHmeH} "in order that I
injure you" is tied to {vIlo'pu'} "I used it" and refers to a specific
instance of using and injuring ({qarIQmoHmeH vIlo'pu'} "I used it in
order to injure you"), while {ghojmeH} "for learning" is tied to {taj}
"knife" and refers to the general use of the knife ({ghojmeH taj} "knife
for learning").

(But note that a knife made for a special purpose, say, so that you may
get your revenge on your old enemy Klang, would be conjugated: {tlhang
vIHoHmeH taj} "knife for me killing Klang.")

So what about {Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH}? It could go either way.
On the one hand, it could mean "how much do you want *me* to pay for
this thing?" On the other hand, it might mean "how much do you ask
anyone to pay for this thing?" By my guess, the former would be
conjugated and the latter would not. If my guess is right, then this
sentence can be interpreted {Dochvetlh DIlmeH, Huch 'ar DaneH} "how
much money do you want for that thing to be paid for?" I added a comma
to block the noun-noun interpretation. It doesn't mean "how much money
do you want for me to pay for that thing?" That would be {Dochvetlh
vIDIlmeH, Huch 'ar DaneH}.

But by my guess, Voragh's interpretation is also correct: {Dochvetlh
DIlmeH Huch} can mean "that thing's money for paying-for." Thus, the
example sentence has two possible and correct interpretations, making it
a poor subject of argument!

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

Back to archive top level