tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 06 15:10:14 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: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 17:09:52 CDT
jIja':
> >So, could we say that, as <<Qu'>> is the "obvious" subject,
> >we want to clip it for brevity; but now the {-meH} clause
> >has nothing to attach to anymore and thus drifts before the
> >verb?
> >
jang ter'eS:
> Well... I'd rather say we have two different ways to say approximately the
> same thing (and of the two, I'm tending to prefer the <Qual V-meH Qu'> form).
> In both cases, it appears that it is permissible, but not required, to drop
> the actual subject (eg. {Qu'}).
>
not sure, I made myself clear... what I was saying is that
a) {qIpmeH Qatlh} is correct because of canon
b) {Qatlh qIpmeH Qu'} should have the same meaning
c) obviously *{Qatlh qIpmeH} is not grammatical
d) to me, ?{qIpmeH Qatlh Qu'}, has to be interpreted as
the {-meH} clause modifying {Qu'} rather than {Qatlh}
or else the literal meaning of the phrase is
"Some task (maybe previously mentioned) is difficult
and the purpose of that is that something hits something."
I can accept a) being the result of going from b) to c) and
"regrammaticalizing" the sentence.
Now the question is, are there canon examples of the form d)?
If so, I must accept that a {-meH} clause modifying a noun
can be seperated from that noun by a main verb AND such a
{-meH} clause can modify a non-explicitly-stated noun...
Not something I look forward to...
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]