![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol po'wI']](/pics/level3_big.png "[Hol po'wI']"){kind=small}
At 14:09 '?????' 5/1/2012, you wrote:
ghItlhta' Qov:
> Would everyone agree that {wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a' Qu' wIta'nISbogh?} was a
> well formed sentence?
I think everybody would agree that it's a
well-formed sentence, but I think that many
(myself being an exception) would contest that
it means what you want it to mean, since being
difficult does not contribute to accomplishing
the purpose (except in some very specific
scenarios, such as when you make it difficult in
order to make it appealing ... but that's not the idea here, I take it).
So, removing the interrogative, because that shouldn't make a difference, for you the change from {Qu' Qatlh wIta'nIS} to {Qatlh Qu' wIta'nISbogh} breaks the statement of what has to happen in order for us to hit it. I can buy that. Can you accept that for some people it doesn't?
My argument is - more or less - that it's not crazy to think that this does work. [I also think that on top of not being crazy, it may also be "correct". I'm less certain about that, though.]A day can be good for dying. Fake ale can be preferable for drinking. A mission can be difficult for achieving.
Does the fact that the first two are acceptable English sentences and the last one sounds ESL have any bearing on anything?
I'd assume it'd be something like: [DoS/nejwI'] wIqIpmeH [maH] Qatlh'a' [ngoQ/Qu'/ta']
I thought that was pretty obvious, too. So much so that I seem to have forgotten to omit the word Qu'.
QI'tu'Daq maHlaw'taH. maHeghpu' qIt'a'?
Is there's supposed to be a -meH after maHeghpu'? If so, then it comes out as stream of consciousness disjointed speech. "We seem to be in Paradise. In order for us to have died [something omitted] ... is it possible? It would get closer to "Is it possible we have died" if there were a period after maHeghpu'. Or better -'a' then a period. "Have we died? Is it possible?"
wej pa' pawmeH vay' DuH'a'?
Okay, trying to discard that I know what the discussion is about and just reading the sentence, like it was an interesting story someone had sent me ... I read that as:
"In order for someone's alternate reality to have not yet arrived in the room," - which doesn't make sense without further context, but it might work as something from the scene from HHGttG where Zaphod Beeblebrox eats the piece of fairy cake from which the universe model was extrapolated. I'm looking for something that is like a possibility but greater in scope or importance. Future?
"In order for him to have not yet arrived there, is something possible," Hmm, that might mean something. It would be better if vay' were changed to wanI' and if the whole thing were rearranged to wej pa' paw. DuH'a' pawbe'meH wanI'?
"In order for someone to have not yet arrived at the room ... is it possible." I think this was the one you were aiming at, but I'm afraid the two halves don't connect for me. It's like someone getting 'e' backwards and trying to use sentence as subject. I think I'm not the first person to say that in this thread. It just doesn't connect as something that is done to achieve the first clause.
Because I know what you are trying to say, I wonder if you are approaching it from the English "Is it possible for someone to have not yet arrived in the room." English is pig-ass stupid and does different things with the same words and the same thing with different words without any rules that native speakers know. That "for" has nothing to do with "for the purpose of." If there is a slight difference between "Is it possible for someone to have not yet arrived in the room?" and "Is it possible that someone has not yet arrived in the room?" it is the difference between {wej pa' pawlaH'a' vay'} and {wej pa' paw vay' 'e' qaSlaHmoH'a' wanI' DuH?}. But the two could both mean exactly the same thing, the second one.
Say things that need saying. Use the best tools at your disposal to express them in the clearest manner possible. If people don't understand something then rather than trying to explain it, rip it out and try a new way to say it.
- Qov
_______________________________________
From: David Trimboli [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 21:41
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses
On 5/1/2012 2:58 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>
>> But the "to hit" in the English is *not* a purpose clause. The
>> full sentence is either "Is the target difficult to hit?" or "Is it
>> difficult to hit the target?" In neither case does the "to hit"
>> mean "in order to hit." (*"Is the target difficult in order to
>> hit?" *"Is it difficult in order to hit the target?") Interpreting
>> it this way, you're just trying to rationalize away the fact that
>> there is no purpose expressed in this sentence
>
> There's a purpose in the Klingon sentence, though: The purpose is
> hitting it. The question is: How hard will that purpose be to
> achieve?
There is a purpose in the situation being described, but it is not
expressed in the sentence. There is no dependency in the sentence on
being difficult, which is what a purpose clause does.
"The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is
describing." (TKD 64)
The purpose clause describes the purpose of the noun or verb to which it
is attached. In the example sentence, {qIpmeH} "in order to hit" can
*only* be describing the purpose of {Qatlh'a'} "is it difficult?"
Let's drop the question for a moment. *{qIpmeH Qatlh} "it is difficult
to hit." This means, literally, "it has the quality of being difficult
so that it can hit." (Let's also ignore the seemingly wrong subject and
object combination... "so that it can hit"?)
But "it" (the target?) does not have the quality of being difficult so
that it can hit. During the situation in question, the probe was just
floating out in space. There was no intention there, no purpose; no one
did anything to make anything difficult.
What the Klingon question *should* be asking is, "Is the hitting
difficult?" Most simply, that would be something like {Qatlh'a'
qIpghach}, though one would not actually say it like that. This is where
twisty constructions like {qIpmeH 'eb} "opportunity for hitting" and the
like start appearing.
>> If this explanation and the sheer obvious English bias of the
>> translations
(Oh, *and* the fact that it doesn't match the grammar in TKD.)
> don't convince you, what would?
>
> To be convinced this doesn't work, I'd need either:
>
> a) ?to be convinced that it's absurd for the main clause to be a
> description of some quality of the means ("it's difficult"), rather
> than a direct statement of those means ("aiming and shooting").
I don't undestand what you mean here. I think there are too many
negatives for me to follow.
If we go by the actual sentiment, rather than what is spoken, the
"hitting" is what is difficult, not the purpose of being difficult. If
anyone has a purpose in the scene, it is Captain Klaa, whose purpose is
to hit the target.
qIpmeH baHta'
he fired to hit the target
If {Qatlh} were a noun meaning "difficulty," I would accept {qIpmeH
Qatlh} as "hitting difficulty." But then it couldn't be a question.
Now, I'd also be interested if you could try to explicitly identify the
subject and object (if any) of {qIpmeH}, and the subject of {Qatlh'a'}.
Is *what* difficult?
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________ Tlhingan-hol mailing list [email protected] http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol