tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 01 11:15:08 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No Subject
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:13:03 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromQov on Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:32:35 -0800)
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:32:35 -0800
>From: Qov <[email protected]>
>Mark,
>I'm sitting in hospital thinking about -meH clauses (and writing in English
>because my husband has to transcribe this). I have examined the TKD phrase
>(on p64) ja'chuqmeH rojHom, but I recuse the believe that ja'chuqmeH is
>modifying the noun. It is a subordinate clause to the whole sentence. The
>enemy does not want an "in-order-to-conver truce", he wants an ordinary
>truce, for the purpose of conferring.
I'm not sure if this was supposed to be sent to the list or to me
specifically, but it might as well be answered publically.
Yes, I, too, thought "ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH..." could/should have the -meH
clause modifying the sentence as a whole. Indeed, that's why I, at least,
didn't at first see that -meH clauses can modify nouns. But Okrand does
gloss it as "a truce in order to confer," and also explicit says that -meH
clauses precede the verb or NOUN they modify. And he has examples like
"ghojmeH taj," etc. There *is* quite a bit of canon supporting -meH
clauses modifying nouns.
>I'm getting frustrated with some of Okrand's examples through. Too many
>seem to contradict the text. If a beginner gave me Okrand's Klingon and his
>translations, I swear I'd hack most of it up, deleting a lot of 'pu's and
>'taHs. By definition, however, I must be the one who is doing it wrong.
>But in that case charghwI''s lovely FAQ is all wrong on the subject of
>aspect, too. baQa'! No wonder Mark was so quiet at qep'a', half-opened
>tons of gharghmey are everywhere.
COuld be...
~mark