tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 06 17:30:14 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:30:01 EDT
In a message dated 98-06-06 18:19:10 EDT, HomDoq writes:
> > >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
teH.
> b) {Qatlh qIpmeH Qu'} should have the same meaning
And is supported by the canon {nargh qaSuchmeH 'eb}.
> c) obviously *{Qatlh qIpmeH} is not grammatical
bIlughba'. But there is no necessity to drop the {Qu'}. {qIpmeH Qu'} is
fine.
> d) to me, ?{qIpmeH Qatlh Qu'}, has to be interpreted as
> the {-meH} clause modifying {Qu'} rather than {Qatlh}
No, the {-meH} clause in this case is modifying the verb {Qatlh}, in the same
way that any other type 9 verb modifies the following main verb.
> 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'd rephrase it as "In order (for someone) to hit (something), the task is
difficult."
To expand and paraphrase it, I understand it as "If one wishes to hit the
thing
under discussion, one will find that the task is difficult."
> I can accept a) being the result of going from b) to c) and
> "regrammaticalizing" the sentence.
>
In the real-world history of Klingon, the {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'} example came long
before
the {nargh qaSuchmeH 'eb} example. It didn't come from a recasting of the
second by dropping the subject. It was clearly the way Okrand chose to
express the particular Sentence As Subject phrase "(it is) hard to hit?" in
whatever ST movie this appeared in. (I do feel, however, that the second
example,
with the {-meH} verb modifying the noun which is the subject of the main verb,
is easier to understand. It actually _is_ a SAS construction.)
I don't really understand why the connection with {-meH} seems so hard
for you to see, becaue it always made sense to me. Maybe there's an
underlying translation issue from English to German here.
> Now the question is, are there canon examples of the form d)?
voragh must not be following this thread, or I'd have expected to see some
canon by now! 8+)
> 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...
>
No, because a) was not derived from b). They're two entirely different
constructions, that both happen to use {-meH}. a) is a dependent verb phrase
modifying the main verb, established by Okrand as a way to render SAS phrases.
b) is a verb phrase modifying a noun (a nominative, if I may coin a term), and
that noun happens to be the subject of the main verb, creating a true form of
SAS:
Main_verb (Verb)-meH Subj
|________| |
| | |
| this is a |
| sentence |
|_____________|
|
this is a nominative-noun compound,
all of which is the subject of Main_verb
> Not something I look forward to...
I don't blame you.
-- ter'eS