tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 18 11:47:21 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-meH} and {Sov} (was Re: KLBC: starting right back...)
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-meH} and {Sov} (was Re: KLBC: starting right back...)
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:47:15 -0500
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from MarcRuehlaender on Mon, 18 Dec 1995 01:09:43 -0800)
>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 01:09:43 -0800
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>> > {mIw jonta' tI'meH Sov}?
>>
>> I don't think this works. For one thing, {mIw jonta'} doesn't make sense.
>>
>Of course not :) That's because they belong to different
>parts of the sentence:
>mIw is the Object of the main verb Sov
>jonta' is the object of the secondary(?) verb tI',
> which forms the purpose clause, applied to
> the main verb
>thus mIw (jonta' tI'meH) Sov
>She knows (in order to fix the engine) the procedure
If mIw is the object of Sov, and "jonta' tI'meH" is a secondary clause
applied to the main one, it still needs to precede mIw. I know TKD says
that the purpose clause precedes the verb it modifies, but examples have
shown otherwise. It looks like Okrand meant to say the "clause" it
modifies. Look at Sect 6.2.4:
jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH
Obviously, the purpose clause can't be modifying "jagh"! It must be
modifying the whole sentence. Yet it comes before jagh. And this example
is expounded on, not likely to be a mistake. Therefore I say that a
purpose clause precedes the noun or CLAUSE it modifies, making "jonta'
tI'meH mIw Sov" correct but ambiguous in scope. Does "jonta' tI'meH" apply
only to "mIw" or to the whole sentence? In practice it's unlikely to
matter, in this case.
~mark