tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 09 09:39:34 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>


>In a message dated 98-06-07 14:08:52 EDT, SuStel writes:
>
> >"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?

If you don't consider phrases like {ghojmeH taj} to be non-"fully verbal"
purpose clauses, then what are they?

> >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"

I mean that there is no special sort of purpose clause which modifies
sentences instead of verbs.  I must admit I'm a little unclear as to what
YOU mean.  I also admit that I'm musing, and not trying to make a concrete
point.

> >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.

What I'm saying is that {-meH} clauses modify nouns or verbs, not sentences.
This has nothing to do with other Type 9 verb suffixes.  The explanation is
given in TKD 6.2.4.: "The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb
whose purpose it is describing."

We are then given two examples:

ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'
The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to confer.

"The phrase {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} 'a truce (in order) to confer' is the object
of the verb {neH} 'he/she wants it' . . ."  Thus, {ja'chuqmeH} is modifying
a noun, {rojHom}.  The purpose of {rojHom} is {ja'chuq}.  Note that this may
or may not be a subjectless purpose clause; the English translation with its
infinitive makes it seem like it might be subjectless, but we can't really
tell.

jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH
They are searching for the enemy in order to kill him/her.

"Here the purpose clause is {jagh luHoHmeH} 'in order for them to kill the
enemy,' . . . It describes the purpose of the verb {lunejtaH} 'they are
searching for him/her.'"  In this case, the purpose clause is given a
definite subject, but we are explicitly told that the purpose of {lunejtaH}
is {luHoHmeH}.  The purpose clause modifies the verb.  Of course, a later
translation also uses the English infinitive where the Klingon uses a real
subject.

Purpose clauses always modify the noun or verb they precede.  (You don't
have to *immediately* precede it if you've got an object somewhere in
there.)

> >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.

The difference between the actual indefinite subject and this "generic
subject" usage is rather vague, if there really is a difference.  I think
the answer might simply this: phrases like {pe'lu'meH taj} are relatively
redundant in that you don't actually *need* an indefinite subject marker in
there, so they are dropped.  That's not to say that we've got some powerful
tool here; it only tends to work when creating very generic purpose clauses.

Another example which might tend to counter this is {tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq
law' bIQ qaq puS} "Drinking fake ale is better than drinking water."  Here,
there is no verb to modify, exactly.  However, it's using the enormously
troublesome law'/puS construction, so I hesitate to draw any conclusions
from it.

> >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.

I'd say that you can describe {-meH} as being a dependant verb phrase for
either a noun or a verb.  It's not limited to just verbs.  The usage for
nouns doesn't seem to be any different than the usage for verbs.

David
Stardate 98436.6

Back to archive top level