tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 08:46:15 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Some questions
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Some questions
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:45:20 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
I apologise if others have already answered this. There is a
point in the second question which I think should be clearly
made.
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:52:04 -0800 JEFF ZEITLIN
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In reference to my continuing efforts to translate Sun Tzu...
>
> Now, the questions:
>
> 1. Compound Imperative Sentences.
>
> Consider two sentences, both imperatives, that have the
> same object:
>
> Care about your prisoners. <<qama'pu'lI' yISaH>>
> Care for your prisoners. <<qama'pu'lI' yIQorgh>>
>
> It is permissible to omit the object the second time
> when joining the sentences with <<'ej>>?
>
> Care about your prisoners, and care for them.
> <<qama'pu'lI yISaH 'ej yIQorgh>>
Yes.
> 2. Nominalization of a phrase/sentence.
>
> One chapter in Sun Tzu is entitled "Offensive Strategy".
> The best recasting I can arrive at is "The Strategy You
> Use To Attack the Enemy". This, grammatically, is a
> noun. I can write a sentence "You use strategy to
> attack the enemy."
>
> <<jagh boHIvmeH Dup bolo'>>
Make it a relative clause by adding {-bogh} to {bolo'}.
> How would one convert this into a noun phrase - for
> example, if I wanted to say "Describe to me *the
> strategy you use to attack an enemy*", I would need this
> construction.
jagh boHIvmeH Dup bolo'bogh HIDel.
Some prefer:
jIHvaD jagh boHIvmeH Dup bolo'bogh yIDel.
While the latter follows the rule in TKD (while the former
simply follows examples given in other canon sources), the
latter is more ambiguous, since it can also mean, "Describe the
strategy which you use for me in order that you attack the
enemy," or "Describe the strategy which you use in order to
attack the enemy for me." There are three verbs to which
{jIHvaD} can be applied and you can't move it closer to the main
verb to make its relationship more clear, since the relative
clause is the direct object and the purpose clause modifies the
direct object and the main verb's indirect object or the
indirect object of either of the other two clauses must preceed
that direct object.
The first attempt, while some don't like it because despite
several examples of its use in canon, there is nothing in TKD
which explains it as a valid construction, and because it is
stylistically unpleasant for several, is not ambiguous at all.
It is the only way of attaching the indirect object exclusively
on the main verb.
> ==========================================================================
> Jeff Zeitlin [email protected]
> ---
> OLXWin 1.00b There are some things worth dying for.
charghwI'