tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 07 12:19:06 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:18:29 EDT
In a message dated 98-06-07 14:08:52 EDT, SuStel writes:
><< 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.
My question is, _where_ have we seen them? Are there canon phrases that
use {-meH} this way, or is this just something we came up with?
>>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.
Me, too.
>The {qaSuchmeH 'eb} phrase actually provides evidence that there is no
>difference between purpose clauses modifying nouns and purpose clauses
>modifying verbs.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of my post, because this is exactly
my
feeling, as well, if you mean by "no difference", "no difference in the
application
of prefixes or explicit subjects and objects"
>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}.
Careful, here! Calling {HoHmeH nej} the "'infinitive' of the verb fully
described"
is dangerously similar to HomDoq's attempt to treat the phrase {qIpmeH Qatlh
nejwI'} like a "compound" adjective (as in the English "a hard-to-hit probe").
I don't agree that {HoHmeH} is modifying the main verb, unless you are also
stating that verbs with {-mo'}, {-chugh}, etc "modify" the main verb.
>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.)
I think this tends to support my other question, which was how to render
an impersonal, or generic, subject with a {-meH} verb. I feel that a
construction
like {pe'meH taj} indicates that the generic subject can be sort of
understood,
if no explicit subject is given.
>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.
_I_ don't call it an infinitive, that was charghwI''s term. I'd call the
{-meH} usage
with a verb a dependent verb phrase, and the {-meH} verb with a noun I'd call
a nominative (that is, something behaving like a noun, since it's part of a
noun-noun
phrase, but which is not in origin a noun). I would say that both forms use
the {-meH} construction in the same way, in that they can take prefixes or
subjects and objects as needed, and that the absence of a subject is to be
interpreted as an impersonal subject.
-- ter'eS