tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 03 21:30:27 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC Doubt with -meH suffix

[email protected] on behalf of Qov wrote:
> There are two theories: One is that it should really be {vIDIlmeH} but the
> prefix has dropped off. The other is that it should really be {DIllu'meH}
> "for someone to buy" but that {-lu'} is not strictly necessary with {-meH}.
> I think we should just take it as an idiom and not worry about why, and not
> try to extend the grammar to any other situation.

There is yet a third theory, which suggests that both of the first two 
theories were concocted by a wily editor of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy . . .

	Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?

There are a number of noun phrases which rely on {-meH} verbs.  {ghojmeH taj} 
"knife for learning" is one of them.  {taj} is NOT the subject of the verb, it 
is the noun which the verb modifies.  I believe that verbs which act this way 
do not take any subject.

In the sentence in question, {Dochvetlh DIlmeH} *may* be a verbal phrase which 
modifies the noun {Huch}.  The noun phrase would be {Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch} 
"money for buying that thing."

It is also possible that {-meH} clauses could modify verbs in the same way.  
Consider:

	qIpmeH Qatlh'a'
	Difficult to hit?

This line from Star Trek V might be considered Clipped Klingon, given the 
translation.  However, since verbs are the only really essential part of 
Klingon sentences, the word "sentence" and "verb" are often used synonymously 
in TKD.  And we have plenty of examples of {-meH} clauses modifying whole 
sentences.

We've got one of these modifying an entire law'/puS phrase in TKW:

	tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS
	Drinking fake ale is better than drinking water.

Who's doing the drinking?  No subject is specified, but {-lu'} was not used.

Oooh, here's a nice example:

	noH QapmeH wo' Qaw'lu'chugh yay chavbe'lu' 'ej wo' choqmeH may'
		DoHlu'chugh lujbe'lu'.
	Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a battle
		to save an empire is no defeat.

Why isn't it {noH Qaplu'meH} and {wo' choqlu'meH}?

Basically, when using {-meH}, you seem to have the option to consider the verb 
a sort of "gerund" form (I used that term correctly, did I not?) without any 
particular subject.

Therefore, in {Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH} we may be seeing a clause 
which doesn't require a subject.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with having one.  Say {Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH 
Huch 'ar DaneH} if you like.

SuStel
Stardate 97758.2

Back to archive top level