tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 04 07:21:30 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}

According to Terrence Donnelly:
> 
> At 10:05 AM 6/3/98 -0700, HomDoq wrote:
> 
> >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?
> >
> 
> No, I would say that the Obj retains its place relative to the V-meH
> verb: Obj V-meH Qual.  The question _I've_ been considering is whether
> the Qual verb requires an explicit subject: {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh} or
> {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh Qu'}?
> 
> We seem agreed that the {-meH} verb phrase is impersonal.  I can see
> why charghwI' adds {-lu'}, but I don't agree it is needed. 

Then we definitely disagree. I believe that the verb with
{-meH} can either be used with no prefix, no subject and no
object, where it is treated as an infinitive by Okrand in
several examples, or it can have a subject and/or object and it
must have an appropriate prefix, or {-lu'}. You can't blend
between these two distinctly different useages. The use of
{-meH} without an appropriate prefix (or {-lu'}) is
fundamentally different from the use of {-meH} with an explicit
subject and/or object.

> Okrand
> has used the {-meH} construction impersonally without {-lu'}, as in
> {ghojmeH taj}, {pe'meH taj}, and I don't think it's needed in this case.

True, but these examples also do not have subjects or objects
for the verb with {-meH}. It is a fundamentally different use
of these verbs, undescribed by the rules in TKD, but very
consistent in Okrand's useage.

> Actually, it has some validity when the {-meH} construction comes first,
> but I definitely don't think it's needed when it follows the quality verb:

You are making an arbitrary and unobserved distinction between
when a {-meH} verb is used to modify a verb or when it is used
to modify a noun. I can't accept this as valid unless you can
back it up with examples. I have not seen any that follow this
"rule". Meanwhile, my distinction is between {-meH} used in a
clause including nouns, where appropriate prefixes always
exist, and when {-meH} verbs are used alone, when there is
never a prefix or {-lu'}. I believe you'll find canon always
follows these observations. I'll leave it to voragh to offer
evidence of which of us is more likely to be correct...

> Obj V-lu'meH Qual (Qu')
> 
> but
> 
> Qual Obj V-meH Qu'
> 
> In the first case, the {-meH} phrase is a dependent verb phrase, preceded by
> its object and with the indefinite subject rendered by {-lu'}.  In the
> second case, the phrase (Obj V-meH) is used almost like a noun, and is the
> modifier of {Qu'}.  As I noted above, these sorts of phrases seem to be
> impersonal by nature and don't require the (-lu'}.
 
Okrand simply tells us that {-meH} clauses can modify main
verbs or nouns. He gives more and better examples in TKD of it
modifying verbs (main clauses), but in later canon, he has been
quite fond of using it to modify nouns. He does not say in the
latter case that it behaves like a noun in a noun-noun phrase.
He simply says it modifies the noun and it preceeds it. None of
this allows you to use it as a clause with a subject or object,
but no appropriate prefix or {-lu'} to indicate subject and
object.

> >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.
> >
> 
> I don't accept that {nejwI'} can be the subject of {ngeD}.  It is clearly
> the object of {qIp} and needs to be in that position.

I disagreed when I thought there was a canon example that used
{nejwI'} in this way, but since that was apparently not canon,
I'm swayed toward agreeing that {nejwI'} is not an appropriate
subject for {ngeD} or {Qatlh}.

> >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)
> >
> 
> As I've noted before, I believe this is a Sentence As Subject formation in
> English, and ("to be Adj" + infinitive) is logically equivalent to
> (infinitive = Adj): "to be hard to hit" = "hitting is hard".
> 
> I think I understand the problem, now!  Your modal infinitive is actually
> functioning like a compound adjective.  In the phrase "the probe is hard
> to hit", "hard to hit" is adjectival, used as a predicate with "probe" as
> its subject.  It works the same way in English, too.  But in Klingon, as
> I understand it, the modal infinitive is not adjectival, but verbal.
> We can't designate the probe as "hard-to-hit".  When we say in Klingon,
> "hitting is hard", the item which is hard to hit must be the _object_
> of "hitting".  We've come to use the {-meH} construction to do this:
> {nejwI' qIpmeH Qatlh Qu'} = {nejwI' qIpmeH} "in order to hit the probe/
> hitting the probe/to hit the probe" + {Qatlh Qu'} "the task is hard",
> i.e., "the task is hard to hit the probe."  This is why I like charghwI''s
> new formula, it makes this even clearer: Qatlh nejwI' qIpmeH Qu'} =
> "The task (of hitting the probe) is hard".

I kinda like this, too. {{:)>

I won't take credit for doing it "first". I think Okrand has
done it first, but I think I've done it first during this cycle
of attention to this area of grammar. Years ago, I got all
tangled up on this because I forgot that {-meH} can be used to
modify nouns. Someone else pointed this out to me and this
example is simply my current use of this tool I learned a ways
back, likely from others.

It's nice to APPEAR to be a pioneer, however.

> >What if the subject is explicitly stated, e.g.
> >
> >Qatlh yaS vISuvmeH Qu'.
> >
> >could you write this as
> >
> >vISuvmeH Qatlh yaS?
> >
> 
> Your movement of {vISuvmeH} is correct, but you are still (as I now
> realize!) treating the {-meH} + Qual as a compound adjective: *"the
> officer is a (hard for me to fight) one".  In reality, {-meH} never
> modifies Qual in either front or back position: before Qual, {-meH} is
> a separate, dependent, verb phrase; after Qual, it is a quasi-noun
> phrase modifying {Qu'}, which is the actual subject of Qual at all times.
> Similarly, any object of the {-meH} phrase remains its object at all times.
> 
> Does this seem logical?
 
I thoroughly agree with this part of your argument. We simply
disagree on the need for {-lu'} when the object is an explicit
noun and the subject is indefinite on a verb with {-meH}.

> -- ter'eS
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711

charghwI'

Back to archive top level