tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 09 12:17:46 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:17:38 CDT
ja' charghwI':
> >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.
>
ja' SuStel:
> Actually, I think that's what it turns out to mean.
>
> 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.
>
That is exactly my "problem"...
> 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.
>
just that people seemed to use construction of the confusing
form, which of course, when translated sloppily into English,
makes perfect sense.
So, unless someone comes up with a theory that explains the grammar
for sentences like {qaSuchmeH nargh 'eb} to be semantically equi-
valent to {nargh qaSuchmeH 'eb}, I'll refuse to accept them as
good role models! (The sentences, not the people without theories :-)
this ends the debate for me... thanks everybody!
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]