tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 15:02:08 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}

yoDtargh writes:
>{ghormeH taj} (a knife, in order to break) is a purpose clause, not a
>noun construction.  As such, it is a phrase which you would normally
>encounter in the context of being a phrase within a sentence.  Therefore,
>I don't think "a knife, in order to break" makes a very good name.

I have to disagree with you.  {ghormeH} itself is a purpose clause.  When
it precedes {taj}, it applies to {taj}.  It does not "suck up" {taj} into
itself.  {ghormeH taj} looks like a perfectly reasonable "noun-ish" phrase
to me, just as reasonable as the phrase {ghorbogh taj}.  Purpose clauses
are unusual in that they can apply to nouns as well as verbs, but I don't
think that fact keeps them from being used in a noun phrase.  There might
be ambiguity if one said something like {ghormeH tajwIj vIghaj}, but some
other sentences are perfectly clear: {quSDaq ghormeH tajwIj vIlan} is not
the same as {ghormeH quSDaq tajwIj vIlan}.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level