tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 20:50:16 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Marc Ruehlaender 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> > > 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?

Well, you are labeling as "Obj" that which is clearly "Subj", 
but if you do so only to tie back into the original, then I have 
been saying that it is valid, though not as clearly stated. In 
part, I did so because I thought that Okrand had used this form 
to express such an idea, but it seems that I was simply confused 
by a non-Okrandian example given in posts here. Now, I'm not 
sure if it really is all that valid.

I can look at [Qual (Obj V-lu'meH) Qu'] and say with confidence 
that it is valid, clear and expressive. I look at [ V-meH Qual 
Obj] and wince and say, "Well, if Okrand used it this way, I can 
accept it," but if in fact Okrand never used it this way, I'm 
hesitant to say that it is "right". I don't like it much, but I 
can accept it if there is pressure or authority behind it. I go 
for the clearest expression, and this is not it.
 
> 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.

Quite interesting. Basically, I could accept it as an idiomatic 
grammatical form, but I'm just not sure Klingons use this idiom. 
That's where canon comes in. Is there any to support this?
 
> 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)

I'd prefer to allow one of the linguists here answer this.
 
> What if the subject is explicitly stated, e.g.
> 
> Qatlh yaS vISuvmeH Qu'.

This is clear.
 
> could you write this as
> 
> vISuvmeH Qatlh yaS?

If this is acceptable, and I'm not excited about the prospect, 
then realize that these would also be acceptable and perhaps 
more clear:

yaS vISuvmeH Qatlh yaS.
yaS vISuvmeH Qatlh.
 
> What if the main verb is not one of Quality, e.g.
> 
> quv poQ yaS Suvlu'meH Qu'.

This one is a little awkward to parse, with yaS naturally 
misinterpreted to be subject of {poQ} until the next two words 
give it a more logical grammatical function. I would find it far 
simpler to understand as:

yaS Suvlu'meH batlh vangnISlu'.

I really prefer castings that can be properly parsed from left 
to right, or while being heard, rather than requiring 
unscrambling in memory.
 
> Can you say
> 
> SuvmeH quv poQ yaS? 

I see that has having a radically different meaning. Casting it 
with the grammar I just chose, it would be:

SuvmeH yaS, batlh vangnIS 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??

When you are not considering clearly hitting, the probe has no 
reference to difficulty. We cannot tell whether the probe is 
easy or difficult if you are not considering hitting it.

My father died of a heart attack when he was my age. My mother 
got her high school diploma when she was seven years older than 
I am now. I am young to die of a heart attack. I am old to not 
have a high school diploma.

So, am I young or am I old? Well, it depends upon what you are 
considering. Similarly, the probe is difficult to hit, likely it 
is difficult to assemble with one hand tied behind you, but it 
may be easy to replicate, given the right equipment or easy to 
simulate using digital modeling.
 
> In another post charghwI' uses the example:
> 
> > chobelmoH DaneHchugh, ngeD Qu'.
> >
> and if I don't want to please you??

Then pleasing me is not your mission. Perhaps it would be 
slightly clearer as:

chobelmoH DaneHchugh, ngeD Qu'lIj.
 
> 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!

Look now. Does the possessive suffix help?
 
> > 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)

Well, I can say that if you try to take every Okrandian example 
of the use of {-meH} and translate it with the {-meH} verb 
stuffed into a "for the purpose of *verb*" template, it often 
will not work.
 
> > > (*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

Well, I was wrestling with what I falsely believed to be 
examples written by Okrand. Without that as an issue, I am more 
prone to discount them and reach for something clearer.

Or am I being confused by your use of pronouns? Which examples 
are the ones you think I don't see as clearest?

> > charghwI'
> > 
> > 
> 
>                                            Marc Ruehlaender
>                                            aka HomDoq
>                                            [email protected]
> 

charghwI'

Back to archive top level