tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 08 07:42:11 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
Let me try to describe this again. You seem to be drawing a
difference between whether a verb with {-meH} is modifying a
verb or modifying a noun. I am drawing the difference between
whether the verb wtih {-meH} itself has a subject or object
noun. I see these as unrelated, while you seem to have
artificially connected them.
According to [email protected]:
>
> charghwI' writes:
> > Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> [..]
> >> 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'}.
>
> 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'}.
Everything you just said sounds like you and I agree, but as we
go farther along, I begin to think you are confused about the
difference between a {-meH} verb which is part of a clause
which includes a subject or object for that verb, and {-meH}
modifying a noun.
> [..]
> >> 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.
>
> I was looking over my notes, and I found the canon phrase {nargh
> qaSuchmeH 'eb} (from a MO MSN posting). Now, is
> this the same usage as the infinitive usage above, and if not, why not?
It is different because the subject and object of the verb
{Such} is indicated by the prefix. The noun {'eb} is NOT part
of the purpose clause. It is the noun modified by the purpose
clause. See?
If I map the way I understand it, {-meH} can be seen split in
two unrelated ways, each of which have two variations. First,
does the purpose clause modify a noun or a verb?:
qaSuchmeH nargh 'eb. = purpose clause modifying the verb {nargh}
nargh qaSuchmeH 'eb. = purpose clause modifying the noun {'eb}
Both of these are valid. The first means, "In order that I
visit you, the opportunity escaped." This is confusing because
it sounds like escape of the opportunity was accomplished with
the intent of it improving the likelihood that I visit you. It
is grammatically correct, but symantically ugly. That's why
this meaning is better carried by the second example, which
means, "The in-order-that-I-visit-you opportunity escaped."
Now, the meaning is clearer because the purpose clause is
describing the noun instead of the verb, which TKD says it can
do. Now, you know that there is an opportunity for me to visit
you, and that opportunity has escaped.
Since {qaSuchmeH} has a subject and an object, it is not an
infinitive. The definition of infinitive involves dealing with
a verb without dealing with a subject or object. The most
famous Shakespearian infinitive, "To be or not to be" does not
tell you who is being. It doesn't address the concept of
subject or object.
Neither of these examples involves the infinative/gerund
construction, which could appear as follows:
SuchmeH nargh 'eb. = "To visit, the opportunity escapes."
nargh SuchmeH 'eb. = "The to-visit opportunity escapes."
Now, {SuchmeH} gets translated as "to visit" or "visiting", so
there is no reference to any subject or object for the verb
"visit". Note that there are four different examples here and
there is no necessary pairing of them. The infinitive form can
modify a noun or a verb. The full clause version can also
modify a noun or a verb. You seem to want the infinitive to
modify a noun and the full clause to modify the verb. This is
the root of your apparent confusion.
> 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).
Does my explanation help?
> I guess my point here is that Okrand has used {-meH} verbs as noun modifiers
> without any obvious subject in a way that seems impersonal to me, and
> also used them as noun modifiers with stated subjects and objects. It seems
> to
> me that this means that the "infinitive" usage is _not_ a special case but is
> just another form of the usual {-meH} construction. I guess what I'd like to
> see is if Okrand has ever used {-meH} as a dependent verb phrase with an
> impersonal meaning and no prefix or {-lu'}.
In Klingon, a purpose clause can act either as a dependent
clause WHICH MUST ALWAYS PRECEED THE MAIN CLAUSE, (think of it
as an adverbial clause) or it can act as an adjective WHICH
MUST ALWAYS PRECEED THE NOUN (which is basically an unusual
condition, but language is like that). {-meH} clauses can also
either have subjects and/or objects, forming a real clause, or
it can lack them, forming a kind of infinitive or gerund. These
four conditions for the {meH} clause can exist with either from
the first pair combining with either of the second pair.
A purpose clause will always modify either a noun or a verb. A
purpose clause will always have a link to some sort of subject
and/or object, or it won't. Meanwhile, there is no necessary
linkage between these two kinds of ways of looking at purpose
clauses.
> 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;
It behaves the same in both cases.
> and, can the impersonal be rendered in {-meH}
> constructions by no actual prefix, or is {-lu'} required?
It can be rendered regardless of whether it modifies a noun or
a verb. The noun modified is not the subject or object of the
verb with {-meH}. The thing that started this was someone
trying to use {-meH} on a verb with an object, but with no
reference to a subject, omitting the necessary {-lu'}. In order
for the verb to omit {-lu'} in that instance, it also would
have had to have omitted the object.
> -- ter'eS
charghwI'