tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 09:56:20 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:56:11 CDT
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 01 Jun 1998 20:13:09 -0700
> > ter'eS, Voragh and charghwI' discuss the following sentences
> > (with respect of indefinite subject "it")
> >
> > yaS SuvmeH Qatlh (Qu').
> > It (The task) is difficult to fight the officer.
>
charghwI' answered:
> Thinking more on this, I think the clearest expression would be
> {Qatlh yaS Suvlu'meH Qu'.} It is clearest because the thing
thank you!!!
so do I get it right, in saying that sentences of the form
Qual (Obj V-lu'meH) Qu'
can be rephrased/simplified as
V-meH Qual Obj?
Taking Qov's response into account, I think that these short forms
really give the adjectival verb an adverbial meaning and the -meH
turns the verb into a passive participle.
e.g. qIpmeH ngeD nejwI' = The probe is easily hit.
In German, the construction "to be + infinitive" is called a
"modal infinitive", because it can be rephrased using a modal verb
like can, should, must etc. How do English grammarians analyze
"to be Adj + infinitive"? (I'm asking this to see how I can
understand the Klingon, please consider this in your answer :0)
What if the subject is explicitly stated, e.g.
Qatlh yaS vISuvmeH Qu'.
could you write this as
vISuvmeH Qatlh yaS?
What if the main verb is not one of Quality, e.g.
quv poQ yaS Suvlu'meH Qu'.
Can you say
SuvmeH quv poQ yaS?
> > qIpmeH Qatlh'a' nejwI'?
> > Is the probe difficult to hit?
>
> qIpchu'ghach qellu'DI', Qatlh'a' nejwI'?
>
and when you don't, it isn't??
In another post charghwI' uses the example:
> chobelmoH DaneHchugh, ngeD Qu'.
>
and if I don't want to please you??
both renderings fail to connect the subordinate clause in the
desired manner. They merely restrict the conditions under which
the truth value of the main clause is to be evaluated;
especially in the last example, it is not clear to me that the
subordinate clause tries to modify the subject of the main clause!
> Well, I'm not sure that {-meH} is perfectly described as
> "purpose". The term does point towards the function of {-meH},
> but {-meH} does extend a bit beyond the simple plug-in
> replacement with "for the purpose of". It often acts as an
> infinitive or gerund, pointing to a particular aspect of an
> action or a noun.
>
how is it used, when not indicating purpose, but an infinitive or
gerund? can you give any "rules" on what can and what cannot be done?
(see my questions above)
> > (*It is difficult in order to fight the officer.
>
> Replace with an infinitive, and you get, "To fight the officer
> is difficult." Use the gerund and you get, "Fighting the officer
> is difficult."
>
well, my point was that this is obviously what was meant, but that
it is different from the narrow interpretation of {-meH} indicating
a purpose clause.
> Does this help?
>
somewhat... :-)
at least I am relieved to see that you don't consider these examples
as the most easily understood
> charghwI'
>
>
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]