tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 01 04:57:40 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses
On May 1, 2012, at 7:01 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The purpose of a purpose clause is to indicate purpose. Is that really
>> so hard to grasp?
>
> There's nothing hard about it. I'm just not sure it's the case, nor that it should be.
I think I can see where you're coming from. In your proposed examples, {-meH} is being used to indicate not method, but manner. It answers how instead of why. That interpretation does fit the {wIqIpmeH} canon better than TKD's description of purpose clauses. "Is it difficult in a we-hit-it kind of way?"
I still think that it's a bad idea to expand the interpretation of purpose clauses that way. While it does fully encompass the troubling canon phrase, it does so in a way that also embraces many opportunities for vagueness and ambiguity. It adds potential unintended interpretations to practically every use of {-meH}, while the only benefit I can see is that it makes it easier to translate an English "sentence as subject" phrasing.
I choose clarity of expression over ease of translation.
(The preceding sentence should not be construed as an insult, accusation, or personal attack -- it's just a concise way to express my personal opinion.)
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol