tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 07 10:41:30 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:09:46 -0400
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>Actually, regarding this second form (where the {-meH} verb is a complete
>verb phrase), I've always thought it should be treated as fully verbal, and
>the
>{-meH} verb should always have the appropriate prefix (or {-lu'}).
However,
>it's been the policy on this list to accept such verbs without prefixes.
I've
>bowed to that policy, and I've done it myself, but I'd really rather see it
>go back to the fully verbal idea: when a {-meH} phrase precedes the main
>verb, it _must_ be marked for subject by the appropriate prefix, an
explicit
>noun,
>or by {-lu'}.
"List policy" is our best estimation of what Klingons really would say.
We've seen non-"fully verbal" purpose clauses multiple times, so we must
accept them.
>I was looking over my notes, and I found the canon phrase {nargh
>qaSuchmeH 'eb} (from a MO MSN posting).
This is the phrase (and is the only one) which proves conclusively that
purpose clauses modifying nouns can take subjects and objects, something
which I had doubted before we learned this phrase. I was quite pleased with
this new information, since it made lots of sense and allowed me to use
greater variety in making purpose clauses.
>Now, is
>this the same usage as the infinitive usage above, and if not, why not?
>Both {ghojmeH} and {qaSuchmeH} are modifying a noun. Why does one
>take a prefix and the other not? Or are we to understand {ghojmeH taj} as a
>shortened form of something like ??{ghojmeH vay''e' taj} (using {-'e'} to
mark
>the subject of {ghojmeH} like we do with {-bogh} verbs).
I have made a speculation on this matter below.
>It boils down to two questions: does the {-meH} construction behave the
same
>way
>when it is a verb phrase and when it is modifying a noun, or are there
>different
>rules for the two usages; and, can the impersonal be rendered in {-meH}
>constructions by no actual prefix, or is {-lu'} required?
The {qaSuchmeH 'eb} phrase actually provides evidence that there is no
difference between purpose clauses modifying nouns and purpose clauses
modifying verbs.
A purpose clause must modify either a noun or a verb. It does not modify a
sentence, per se, but the fact that verbs are almost indistinguishable from
sentences in Klingon makes that fact a little muddy.
{pe'meH taj} "cutting knife, knife for cutting"
A purpose clause modifying a noun, never mind for now whether it's a sort of
infinitive or not.
{jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH} "They are searching for the enemy in order to
kill him."
Just as you might tell me that the "infinitive" of the main verb is {nej}
"search," so you might say that the "infinitive" of the verb fully described
is "HoHmeH nej" "search for the purpose of killing." {jagh luHoHmeH} isn't
one block added onto {jagh lunejtaH}, {jagh} and the affixes are being added
to {HoHmeH nej}.
To compare:
{pe'meH taj} "knife in order to cut"
{HoHmeH nej} "search for in order to kill."
If the knife was specifically made with the purpose in mind of my cutting
you, and if the seeking were done with the purpose in mind of my seeking
you, we'd add the appropriate elements to these sentences to get
{qape'meH taj} "knife in order that I cut you"
{qaHoHmeH qanej} "I search for you in order that I kill you"
The fact that this last phrase is also a sentence is irrelevant.
Furthermore, if you grabbed the knife and tried to cut a tribble, I probably
wouldn't start calling the knife a {yIH Dape'meH taj}. Purposes of objects
probably don't switch all that often. (This is my opinion only. I think
this is why such things are given a generic name, like {pe'meH taj}.
Specifying the purpose more precisely is bound to cause errors when things
get switched. Just label it with as much generic information as you can.)
If you like to think of this sort of thing as an infinitive, fine, but I
think that'll cause problems later. I prefer to think of this as a generic
or unconsidered usage.
SuStel
Stardate 98431.3