tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 09 09:39:35 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: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 19:08:10 -0400
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>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.
Actually, I think that's what it turns out to mean.
>That's why
>this meaning is better carried by the second example, which
>means, "The in-order-that-I-visit-you opportunity escaped."
I like this. Watch:
qaSuchmeH nargh 'eb
The opportunity performed "in-order-that-I-visit-you escaping."
nargh qaSuchmeH 'eb
The "in-order-that-I-visit-you opportunity" escaped.
We don't want the former, we want the latter. That's what we mean. There
was no purpose to the escaping, there was purpose to the opportunity.
That's the problem with {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'}. There was no purpose to being
difficult, there was purpose to the task of hitting.
Qatlh qIpmeH Qu'.
In my opinion, not a sentence to get too worked up about in the long run, as
it probably won't have a solution any time soon.
SuStel
Stardate 98436.6